dismissed L-1A Case: Investment

identifying data ae!cc .. 
prevent clearly unwarrailred 
hasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
NOV 0 9 20% 
FILE: EAC 04 092 53462 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Adminish-ative 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 
EAC 04 092 53462 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was initially approved by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center. The director subsequently served the petitioner with a notice of her intention to revoke the 
approval of the nonimmigrant visa petition, and ultimately revoked the approval of the petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The U.S. entity petitioned Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee (L-1 A) pursuant to section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a New York corporation that 
claims to be en a ed in the investment business. The petitioner states that it is a subsidiary of = 
ft 
located in China. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay to 
open a new o ice in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay for 
three years in order to continue to fill the position of president. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition on February 11, 2004. The director initially approved the 
petition on March 15, 2004. On March 25, 2005, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke the 
approval, noting that the approval of the beneficiary's initial "new office" petition (EAC 03 082 53709) 
had been revoked on December 23,2003, and the beneficiary was therefore ineligible for an extension of 
the new office petition at the time the instant petition was approved. In the notice of intent to revoke, the 
director noted that the record lacked: (1) credible evidence of the qualifying relationship between the U.S. 
entity and foreign company; (2) evidence that the beneficiary has been performing the duties of a manager 
or executive with the foreign company; (3) evidence that the beneficiary will perform in a managerial or 
executive capacity with the U.S. entity; (4) evidence that both the foreign company and the U.S. entity are 
doing business; and (5) evidence that the petitioner secured sufficient physical premises for the new 
office. 
The director requested, in part: a copy of the foreign company's annual report; evidence to show that the 
foreign parent company paid for the U.S. entity; a copy of the minutes of the meeting for the foreign 
company that lists the stockholders and the number and percentage of shares owned; a comprehensive list 
of duties, including percentage of time spent on each duty, performed by all of the employees at the 
foreign company; a detailed description of the beneficiary's duties in the United States, including the 
staffing of the U.S. entity; a copy of the U.S. entity's payroll; copies of the U.S. entity's bank statements; 
letters &om the U.S. bank indicating the bank account activity; a copy of the U.S. entity's valid business 
license; a copy of the U.S. entity's telephone directory listing; copies of local, national and/or 
international publications showing advertisements for or about the U.S. entity; invoices, telephone bills 
and utility bills for the U.S. company; a floor plan for the U.S. entity; and, the square footage of the U.S. 
entity's leased space. 
The director properly advised the petitioner that it had thirty days in which to submit the requested 
evidence, and that failure to submit such evidence could result in the revocation of the approval 
previously granted. 
In a response dated April 6,2005, the petitioner submitted some of the requested documentation but failed 
to submit several of the documents requested by the director. Failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(14). 
EAC 04 092 53462 
Page 3 
The director revoked the approval of the petition on May 5,2005, noting that the petitioner did not submit 
all of the requested evidence in regard to the grounds for revocation. The director concluded that the 
petitioner had not established that: (1) the petitioner and the foreign entity have a qualifying relationship; 
(2) the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; (3) the United States company 
is doing business as required by the regulations; and, (4) it had secured adequate physical premises to 
house its new office in the United States. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on June 2,2005. The director declined to treat the appeal as a 
motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. The petitioner indicated on Form I-1290B that 
it would submit a brief and/or evidence to the AAO within 30 days. As no additional evidence has been 
incorporated into the record, the AAO contacted the petitioner by facsimile on October 5, 2006 to request 
that the petitioner acknowledge whether the brief and/or evidence were subsequently submitted, and, if 
applicable, to afford the petitioner an opportunity to re-submit the documents. To date, the petitioner has 
not responded to the AAO's request. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(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. 
Under CIS regulations, the approval of an L-1A petition may be revoked on notice under six specific 
circumstances. 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). To properly revoke the approval of a petition, the director 
must issue a notice of intent to revoke that contains a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation 
and the time period allowed for rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision to revoke approval of the petition. In the 
present case, the director did raise sufficient factual issues to support the revocation. The notice of intent 
to revoke and the subsequent revocation were based on evidence that was in the record at the time the 
notice was issued. 
On the Form I-1290B Notice of Appeal, the petitioner asserts the following: 
1. Parent company and US Entity has good qualifying relationship [sic]. 
2. Duties of each employee is just documents [sic]. 
3. We have a good tax return records [sic]. 
4. We have a good business records [sic]. 
Despite these assertions made by the petitioner, based on the minimal documentation in the record, it 
cannot be determined that the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; that the 
United States entity and the entity abroad continue to have a qualifying relationship; or that the U.S. 
entity and foreign entity are doing business. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
EAC 04 092 53462 
Page 4 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). The petitioner's unsupported assertions, without specifically identifying any errors on the 
part of the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusion the 
director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. 
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. 
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. 
The AAO notes that generally, the director's decision to revoke the approval of a petition will be affirmed, 
notwithstanding the submission of evidence on appeal, where a petitioner fails to offer a timely 
explanation or rebuttal to a properly issued notice of intention to revoke. See Matter of Arias, 19 I&N 
Dec. 568, 569 (BIA 1988). In this matter, the director's notice of intent to revoke was properly issued 
based on a number of factual inconsistencies in the record. Although the petitioner technically submitted 
a timely response to the notice of intent to revoke, it failed to rebut any of the deficiencies noted in great 
detail in the director's notice of intent to revoke, nor did it submit any of the evidence or explanation 
which was clearly and specifically requested by the director. For this additional reason, the director's 
decision to revoke the approval of the petition will not be disturbed. 
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. 5 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.