dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Sales

U.S. Department of Humeland Securfty 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washngton, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
. and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 170 501 18 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: QTm L. k 1 'd pr;;p9qy L -t~u-., 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L) 
ON BEWF 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. 
YJ 
dministrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 170 501 18 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 petition seekingsto employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimrnigrant 
intracompany transferee with its United States subsidiary 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 United States entity is a 
corporation organized in the State of Delaware that is engaged in the import and sale of meat products from 
Australia. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the role of sales manager for a four-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish (1) that the beneficiary was 
employed with the foreign entity in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, (2) that the beneficiary will 
be employed with the United States entity in a qualifying capacity, or (3) that the United States entity has 
been doing business for at least one year. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits extensive documentation that was previously requested by the director in his 
request for evidence. The petitioner does not object to the denial of the petition, nor does its representative 
specify any erroneous conclusions of law or svdtements of:fact on the part of the director. Instead, he merely 
asserts that "further infonnationfevidence required to satisfy the original petition is now available," and herein 
submirs the evidence previously requested. The petitioner also states "it is our opinion that the position [the 
beneficiary] has held [with the Australian entity] as Sales and Marketing Manager-North America does meet 
all criteria listed. In particular Section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) is satisfied." The petitioner does not address the issue 
of the beneficiary's proposed United States employment. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 8 llOl(a)(l5)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization and seeks to enter the United States tcmporarily in order to continue to render his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affis the denial of the petition. 
The director issued a lengthy request for evidence on July 17, 2003, requesting: (1) evidence to establish a 
qualifying relationship between the Australian petitioner and the United States entity; (2) evidence to 
establish that the beneficiary has been employed with a qualifying organization for at least 12 months in the 
previous three years, including his personal tax return and payroll records; (3) evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary has been and will be employed in a managerial or cxecutive capacity, including a comprehensive 
job description, employment history, number of employees supervised, evidence of managerial decisions 
made, scope of discretionary decision-making authority, and job titles and duties of his subordinates; and (4) 
evidencc to establish that the United States entity has been engaged and is presently engaged in the regular 
systematic and continuous provision of goods or services, including evidence of the financial status of the 
company, banks statements, and a copy of the latest U.S. corporation income tax return. While the petitioner 
EAC03 170 50118 
Page 3 
submitted a response received on July 28,2003, the petitioner did not submit the requested evidence. Most of 
the documents submitted were copies of documents submitted with the initial petition and were not 
responsive to the director's concerns. Yet, the petitioner now submits much of the requested evidence on 
appeal. 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her 
discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that 
clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 
8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(14). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been 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 request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need 
not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. 
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 will 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. $ 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.