dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
 U. S. Citizenship 
prevent deL .iwarranted 
 and Immigration 
invasion of personal privacy Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: WAC 04 252 50363 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEp 2 7 MOfi 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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 fiu-ther inquiry must be made to that office. 
0 
ministrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 252 50363 
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 states that it is engaged in international trade. It seeks to extend its authorization to employ the 
beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its president. The director denied the petition based on the 
conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been and will continue to be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, the director noted that the petitioner's 
description of the beneficiary's duties was too vague to ascertain the exact nature of the beneficiary's day-to- 
day role in the company. In addition, the director noted that the record contained no evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary supervised a subordinate staff of professional, managerial, or supervisory employee, such that 
he could be deemed a manager. Finally, the director concluded that based on the evidence submitted, the 
beneficiary appeared to perform the tasks necessary to provide the petitioner's services, and therefore could 
not be found to be functioning in a capacity that was primarily managerial or executive. 
On the Form I-290B, counsel for the petitioner indicated that the '[pletitioner disputes denial of [the 
beneficiary's] position as executive of international trading business." Counsel also submitted a one-page 
statement in support of the appeal. Counsel's statement, however, merely states that the "[pletitioner is 
engaged in the business of international trade, which does not need to hire any person with professional 
degree to handle the business." Counsel fiu-ther submits evidence of a revolving line of credit issued to the 
petitioner, as well as copies of purchase orders. Additionally, counsel submits evidence of the presence of 
"significant customers" as well as copies of the petitioner's Forms 1120, U.S Corporation Income Tax Return, 
for the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, alleging that this evidence shows that the petitioner business has 
significantly grown over the past few years. 
Counsel's statements on appeal fail to adequately address the director's conclusions. In the brief statement 
provided, the petitioner merely provides documentation pertaining to the growth in the petitioner's business. 
While this documentation is certainly indicative of the petitioner's flourishing business dealings, the denial 
was not based on an allegation that the petitioner was not doing business. The specific basis for the director's 
denial was a finding that the beneficiary's position was not primarily managerial or executive. The director 
pointedly discussed three main areas of deficiency in the evidence, namely, a lack of subordinate personnel to 
relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties, the failure to state with specificity the exact 
nature of the beneficiary's duties, and the presumption that the beneficiary performs most of the non- 
qualifying tasks necessary to provide the petitioner's services. Counsel's general statements on the Form I- 
290B and attached statement do not specifically identify any errors on the part of the director, and are thus 
simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached based on the 
evidence submitted by the petitioner. 
Absent a clear statement, brief andlor evidence to the contrary, counsel for the petitioner does not identify, 
specifically, any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. Hence, the appeal must be summarily 
dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
WAC 04 252 50363 
Page 3 
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. 
In the instant case, the petitioner fails to acknowledge or address the director's reasons for the denial. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.