dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

i-fyiag data deleted to 
prevent clmj~ ananted 
invasion of pctwrial privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PIlBLlC COPY 
File: WAC 04 238 51904 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: on 2 3 2006 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (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. 
4 
7 
--" -+- 
* ~obd-~iern n, Ch~ef 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 238 51904 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 is a California corporation allegedly engaged in the business of importing, exporting, and 
distributing various products including chemicals and pharmaceuticals. The petitioner seeks to extend the 
employment of the beneficiary as its vice president/sales 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. tj 
1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
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 additional evidence 
regarding the beneficiary's duties and the petitioner's organization. 
To establish eligibility under section 10 l(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. fj 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. While the petitioner stated in the Form I- 
290B that it disagrees with the director's decision, it failed to specifically identify any errors in the proceeding 
or to provide any additional evidence for the AAO to consider.' 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. 
'While the petitioner did provide documentation on appeal, the petitioner was put on notice of required 
evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was 
adjudicated. The petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence in response to the director's request for 
evidence and now submits it on appeal. The AAO will not consider this evidence for any purpose. See Matter 
of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
WAC 04 238 51904 
Page 3 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.