dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: LIN 05 059 52323 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER me: SEP 0 6 2006 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 05 059 52323 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of 
general manager to open a new office in the United States as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee 
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 
1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan and is 
allegedly engaged in the business of importing and ex 
 glasses, lighting, and 
clothing. The petitioner claims that it is an affiliate of 
 located in Jordan. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that (1) the intended United 
States operation, within one year of approval of the petition, would support an executive or managerial 
position; or (2) the petitioner had secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner provided a written statement by the 
beneficiary and offered additional evidence. The statement and additional evidence generally indicate that the 
beneficiary is, and intends to be, engaged in a business venture entirely unrelated to the petitioner. The 
beneficiary also provided a lease related to the petitioner, but further indicates that this lease has been 
cancelled and the business plan as outlined in the petition has been abandoned. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof 
in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. The only error alleged by the petitioner was 
its own error in not providing a copy of the petitioner's lease. Not only is this evidence now irrelevant given 
the beneficiary's intended involvement in another business venture and his cancellation of this lease, but 
additional evidence cannot be submitted on appeal where, as here, a petitioner was on notice of a deficiency 
in the evidence and was given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency. The AAO will not accept 
evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also 
LIN 05 059 52323 
Page 3 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to 
be considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. 
Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted 
on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.