dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

identifying d~to deleted to 
prevent ~liii~i .warranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC 05 132 502 16 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (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 
SRC 05 132 50216 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will summarily dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of its general manager 
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 Florida and is allegedly an import/export business. The petitioner claims a qualifying 
. - 
relationship with The beneficiary was initially granted a'one-year 
period of stay to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend the 
beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Counsel for 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 submitted a brief and additional 
evidence. However, neither the petitioner nor counsel identifies any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact made by the director. 
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 counsel and the petitioner failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a 
statement of fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. While the petitioner attempts 
to restate its case on appeal and to provide additional organizational, financial, and business documentation 
for consideration, 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 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 
SRC 05 132 50216 
Page 3 
request for evidence, which specifically addressed the business activities of the petitioner and the 
beneficiary's job duties. 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. $ 1361. The petitioner has hot met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.