dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
IN RE: 
WAC 08 0 18 50 167 
 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
 0 7 2008 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(lj)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 101 (a)(lj)(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 08 018 50167 
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 filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary 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. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a California corporation, states that it is engaged in international 
trade including export of PVC and scrap metal materials and import of kitchen cabinets. It claims to be a 
subsidiary of GZ Yueao Furniture Enterprise, Co., Ltd., located in Guangzhou, China. The petitioner seeks to 
employ the beneficiary in the position of chief executive officer for a period of two years. 
The director denied the petition on December 13,2007, concluding that the petitioner had not established that 
the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The 
director observed that the petitioner had failed to provide a comprehensive description of the beneficiary's 
proposed duties as chief executive officer, and had failed to establish that the petitioner's current staff of three 
employees would be sufficient to relieve the beneficiary from involvement in the day-to-day operational 
activities of the company. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on January 14,2008. The director declined to treat the appeal as a 
motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. Counsel indicated on the Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, that he would submit a brief and additional documents to the AAO within 30 days. 
Counsel did not identify a basis for the appeal on Form I-290B. 
As no additional evidence has been incorporated into the record, the AAO contacted counsel by facsimile on 
April 14, 2008 to request that counsel acknowledge whether the brief and/or evidence were timely submitted, 
and to afford counsel an opportunity to re-submit the documents. Counsel responded to the AAO's request on 
April 18, 2008 and has advised that he did not file a brief or evidence in support of the appeal as he indicated 
on Form I-290B. 
To establish eligibility under section lOl(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. 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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
WAC 08 018 50167 
Page 3 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner had failed to provide a comprehensive description of the 
beneficiary's proposed duties as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The AAO further notes that the 
petitioner currently employs a vice president whose job description is essentially identical to that provided for 
the beneficiary's proposed position of chief executive officer. The petitioner provided no explanation as to 
why it required another employee to perform the same job duties. Furthermore, the petitioner indicated that 
both individuals would be managing department managers in the areas of waste material purchasing, 
accountingtshipping, salestmarketing, production and warehouse. As noted by the director, the petitioner 
employs a total of three employees: a vice president, a secretary who performs clerical functions, and a 
presidenilpurchasing department manager. The petitioner does not currently employ the various "department 
managers" referenced in the beneficiary's job description, and does not claim to have any employees 
responsible for accounting, shipping, sales, marketing, or warehouse functions. Although the petitioner 
referenced its plans for an expansion, the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. 
Comm. 1978). 
The petitioner has not submitted any evidence on appeal to overcome the director's grounds for denial of the 
petition. 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. 4 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. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.