dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

U.S. Department of pmeland Security 
~Wtifying data deleted to 
pment dearly umvammW 
hV(UIon of personal privacy 
20 Massachusetts A1 
Washington, DC 20 
U.S. Citizen 
and Immig 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: EAC 04 224 50632 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Datc 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(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 bc 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
d l~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
vstrative Appeals Office 
N.W., Rm. A3042 
9 
lip 
 tio on 
EdOV 10 2as 
nmigration 
1 returned to 
EAC 04 192 53888 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)( 15)(L) of the Immigration and 
U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a New York corporation that 
trade. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of Sunlight 
Tianjin, China. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary 
States for a one-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not established that: 
relationship exists between the United States and foreign entities; (2) sufficient premises 
for the new office; (3) the beneficiary has been employed in a managerial or 
qualifying organization for a least one year within the three years preceding the 
the new office will support a managerial or executive position within one year. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, the petitioner tates: "Please 
reconsideration [sic] base[d] on the file enclosed." The petitioner attached copies of previ usly submitted 
documents to the Form I-290B, but indicated that no brief or additional evidence would be pro ided. i 
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 
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 th United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or ffiliate thereof 
in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 1 
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 pa 
concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
fact for the appeal. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of th petition. The 
petitioner's request for reconsideration based on the current record does not acknowledge mu h less address 
the many deficiencies in the record as discussed in the director's decision. 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 appeal must be summarily dismissed. 1 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains e 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not met this 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.