dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying * deleted to 
prevent ntkaly ;~wmanted 
invmim of pt2mona1 privacy 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: WAC 05 012 50985 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date:m 1 9 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. § 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 012 50985 
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, a California corporation, claims to be a subsidiary of Favour Import Export Co., Ltd. 
located in Cambodia. The petitioner states that the United States entity is engaged in the business of 
import and export of used and salvaged cars and trucks. Accordingly, the United States entity petitioned 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to classifj the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany 
transferee (L-1A) pursuant to section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act as an executive or manager for two years. 
The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay and the petitioner now seeks to extend the 
beneficiary's stay in order to continue to fill the position of general manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the record contains insufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The director also noted that 
the evidence does not support a finding that the petitioner will be supervising a subordinate staff of 
professionals, or managers. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on June 23,2005 and asserted on Form I-1290B: "The petition 
is inappropriately denial [sic]." Counsel indicated on Form I-1290B that he would submit a brief and/or 
evidence to the MO within 45 days, and explained that the additional time was needed because of "our 
unavailable schedules and the complexity of this appeal." As no additional evidence has been 
incorporated into the record, the AAO contacted counsel by facsimile on October 10,2006 to request that 
counsel acknowledge whether the brief andlor evidence were subsequently submitted, and, if applicable, 
to afford counsel an opportunity to re-submit the documents. Counsel for the petitioner did not respond 
to the MO. Accordingly, 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. 
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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Counsel's general objections to the denial of the petition, without specifically identifying any errors on the 
part of the director or providing new evidence to support that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity, are simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and 
logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
WAC 05 012 50985 
Page 3 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 1 & N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998)(citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I & N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I 
& N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). On review, while the beneficiary 
evidently exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the business, the petitioner's description 
of his proposed duties suggest that the beneficiary's actual duties include a number of non-managerial and 
non-executive duties. 
The beneficiary's proposed job description includes vague duties such as the beneficiary will "exercise 
discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function," and "manage the overall operation 
of the company. The petitioner does not explain what exactly are the goals and policies of the petitioner. 
Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or 
managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. 
Cir. 1990). 
In addition, the job duties required of the beneficiary include non-qualifying duties such as the beneficiary 
will "contact U.S. suppliers, negotiate and devise plans, secure orders, direct the shipping company for 
any product transfer and shipment, contact US Customs and Cambodia Customs regarding respect [sic] 
duties in the transaction and complete the export process." It appears that the beneficiary will be providing 
the services of the business rather then directing such activities through subordinate employees. An 
employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or provide a service is not 
considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and 
(B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see 
also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I & N Dec. 593,604 (Cornrn. 1988). 
The petitioner's description of the beneficiary's duties cannot be read or considered in the abstract, rather 
the AAO must determine based on the totality of the record whether the description of the beneficiary's 
duties represents a credible account of the beneficiary's role within the organizational hierarchy. As noted 
by the director, the petitioner indicated on its organizational chart that the beneficiary supervises the 
accountant, mechanic engineer and trading coordinator. Upon review of the brief job descriptions 
submitted for these positions, it appears that the only individual in charge of managing the sales, 
marketing, and exporting functions will be the beneficiary himself. It appears that the mechanic engineer 
will be responsible for the repair of the inventory, the trading coordinator will be responsible for 
purchasing the inventory, and the accountant will be responsible for the accounting operations. However, 
the beneficiary is the only employee who will perform the majority of the operational tasks required in 
exporting the inventory abroad and running a large component of the business. Accordingly, the director 
reasonably concluded that the beneficiary will be performing the day-to-day operations and directly be 
providing the services of the business rather than directing such activities through subordinate employees. 
An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or provide services is 
not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 
WAC 05 012 50985 
Page 4 
lOl(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or 
executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology International 19 I & N Dec. at 604. 
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. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in support of the appeal, the petitioner 
has not sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.