dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of persona\ privac! 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MAY 1 6 2@1 
FILE: SRC-04-06 1-50942 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
e Robert P. Wiemaq Chief 
I!? 
dministrative Appeals Office 
SRC-04-6 1-50942 
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 appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it is an import export business. It seeks authorization to employ the beneficiary 
temporarily in the United States as its executive manager, pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based 
on the following conclusions: 1) that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in managerial or executive capacity; and 2) that a qualifying relationship did not exist with the 
foreign organization. 
On the Form I-290B appeal the petitioner did not state a reason for the appeal. Petitioner states that a brief or 
evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The appeal was filed on July 21, 2004. As of this 
date, the AAO has received nothing further and the record will be considered complete. 
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. 
The AAO would note for the record that the foreign organization was formed after the beneficiary arrived in 
the United States, and thus the beneficiary would not have been employed abroad for at least one year prior to 
the filing of the petition as required by statute. For this reason alone, the petition may not be approved. 
On appeal the petitioner did not state the basis for the appeal. Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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 petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact 
in thls proceeding, the appeal must be summarily 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. 9 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.