dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave N W . Rm A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
wtifying data Qletod to 
peroatddyummrr8~~ U.S. Citizenship 
bdon of personal privacy and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 04 224 50632 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date;. NOV 1 (B 2@$ 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: . Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
'ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
5 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decislon of the Admrnistrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inqu~ry must be made to that office. 
T 
dministrative Appeals Office 
6 
EAC 04.192 53888 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Servlce Center, denled the petlt~on for a nontmmlgrant vlsa The 
matter 1s now before the Admlnlstrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal wlll be summarlly 
d~smlssed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-14 nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. ll0l(a)(l5)(~). The petitioner is a New York corporation that intends to engage iin international 
trade. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of located in 
Tianjin. China. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the president of its new offihe in the United 
States for a one-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had 'not established that: (11) a qualifying 
relationship exists between the United States and foreign entities; (2) sufficient premises hafe been secured 
for the new office; (3) the beneficiary has been employed in a managerial or executive 4apacity with a 
qualifying organization for a least one year within the three years the filing of the betition; or, (4) 
the new office will support a managerial or executive position within one year. 
The petitloner subsequently filed an appeal. The director decllned to treat the appeal as1 a motlon and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On the Form I-290B Notlce of Appeal, the petltloner itates: "Please 
recons~deratlon [SIC] baseldl on the file enclosed." The petitloner attached copies of previ~usly subrn~tted 
documents to the Form I-290B, but ind~cated that no brlef or addltlonal evldence would be prohded. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act,. the petitioner ,must meet @ertain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the ~nited States, a 
finn, 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 thd United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or $ffiliate thereof 
in a managerial, exec~thi, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
, '. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal 1s taken shall surnrnanly dlsmiss any appeal when the party 
concerned falls to ident~fy speclfically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement' of 
fact for the appeal. 
I 
Upon review, the AAO concurs wlth the d~rector's decls~on and affirms the den~al of thd pet~tion. The 
pet~t~oner's request for recons~derat~on based on the current record does not acknowledge muhh less address 
the many deficlencles In the record as discussed in the director's decls~on. Inasmuch as the pet~t~oner has 
falled to ~dent~fy speclfically an erroneous conclus~on of law or a statement of fact In suppod of the appeal, 
the appeal must be summarlly d~sm~ssed. 
In vlsa pet~tlon proceedmgs, the burden of proving ehglblllty for the benefit sought remalns entlrely w~th the 
pet~tloner. Sectlon 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. Here, the petlt~oner has not met th~s burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.