dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 03 032 52959 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: EC 2 4 20a 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF 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. 
5 / 
/ 
/ 
yL~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 032 52959 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, initially approved the intracompany transferee 
nonimmigrant visa petition. Upon subsequent review, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke and 
ultimately revoked approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of New York in October 2002. It claims it exports 
American production technology and raw material to China. It seeks to temporarily employ the beneficiary as its 
president. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonirnrnigrant intracompany 
transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Irmueration and Nationality Act (the Act). 8 U.S.C. 
The director initially approved the petition on November 18, 2002. Upon subsequent review of the evidence 
in support of the petition, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke approval on August 15, 2003, 
observing that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) had received a large number of filings from other 
petitioners allegedly located at the petitioner's address. The director noted other discrepancies and requested 
evidence to clarify the discrepancies and to establish the beneficiary's eligibility for this visa classification. In 
the notice of intent to revoke, the director indicated that a decision on the proposed revocation would not be 
made for 30 days, allowing the petitioner opportunity to submit any evidence that would overcome the 
grounds for revocation. The director revoked approval of the petition on December 11, 2003, noting that the 
petitioner had not responded to the notice of intent to revoke. 
On January 10, 2004, the petitioner submitted a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, indicating that it had not 
received the August 15, 2003 notice of intent to revoke because it had moved to a different address. The 
director reopened the matter and on June 9, 2004, resent the information contained in the notice of intent to 
revoke. The director afforded the petitioner 60 days to submit evidence to overcome the grounds for 
revocation. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) receiving no rebuttal to the issues raised in the notice 
of intent to revoke, revoked approval on December 15,2004. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in perhnent 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." 
The petitioner submitted a Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, on January 18, 2005. The petitioner did not 
indicate on the Form I-290B whether a brief or evidence would be submitted. The petitioner did not provide 
any reasons for the appeal. To date, careful review of the record reveals no subsequent submission; all other 
documentation in the record predates the issuance of the notice of decision. 
Inasmuch, as the petitioner failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, 
the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
EAC 03 032 52959 
Page 3 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.