dismissed L-1A Case: International Finance And Trade

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly l~nwa~~med 
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 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
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. 
2 
,/- ,/ qfL 
RO~ P. ~iemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 177 52879 
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 visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as its president to open 
a new office 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 petitioner is a corporation 
organized under the laws of the State of Maryland and is allegedly en a ed in the business of international 
finance and trade. The petitioner claims a qualifying relationship with ee of Iran. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not prove (1) that sufficient physical 
premises have been secured for the business; (2) that there is a qualifying relationship between the foreign 
entity and the United States entity; and (3) that the intended United States operation, within one year of the 
approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position. 
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, counsel to the petitioner asserts the following: 
[The beneficiary's] petition was twice approved for an L-1 visa on the same set of facts. 
The government is denying the petition and requesting further evidence regarding a 
business plan, physical premises, etc. Considering that in 2002 after his petition had been 
approved [and] he was awaiting his visa[,] [the beneficiary] and [the petitioner] made 
considerable investments to then see his visa become invalid because the consulate took 
so long to conduct the background check, [the beneficiary] does not understand how a 
further request is warranted. 
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. tj 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 has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. The only error implied, but not specifically 
EAC 04 177 52879 
Page 3 
identified, by the petitioner was that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) should have approved the 
petition because it approved earlier petitions for the same beneficiary by the same petitioner. CIS is not 
required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of 
prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientoloay International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593, 597 (Cornrn. 1988). Moreover, each nonimmigrant and immigrant petition is a separate record of 
proceeding with a separate burden of proof; each petition must stand on its own individual merits. The prior 
nonimmigrant approvals do not preclude CIS from denying an extension petition. See e.g. Te,xas A&M Univ. 
v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). 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. fj 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.