dismissed L-1A Case: Investment And Development

identifying data deld to 
prevent cldy unw~nanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN 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 further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 06 219 51872 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee to open a new office in the United States pursuant to section 
101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 1 10l(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is 
a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois and is allegedly in the "investment and 
development" business. The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that 
the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily executive or managerial capacity 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 for review. On appeal, counsel to the petitioner states in the Form I-290B 
as follows: 
The petitioner submitted evidence sufficient to meet the requirements set forth in 8 C.F.R. 
§214.2(1)(3)(~), governing new offices, that the job duties of the position offered to the 
beneficiary were primarily executive or managerial in nature; the beneficiary was employed 
as manager for at least one year during the preceding three years with the company abroad; 
and that the foreign entity had the financial intent and ability to capitalize the new investment 
and remunerate the beneficiary for his services. 
Counsel further indicated that it would be sending a brief and/or evidence to the AAO within sixty days. On 
April 26, 2007, counsel requested an extension of time in which to submit a brief to May 1, 2007. On April 
26, 2007, the AAO granted this request and extended the filing deadline to May 15, 2007. However, as it 
appeared that neither a brief nor additional evidence had ever been submitted to the AAO, the AAO sent a fax 
to counsel on March 20, 2008 requesting that she submit the brief and/or additional evidence, if these 
materials had previously been submitted by the above deadline, within five business days along with evidence 
of the date they were originally filed with Citizenship and Immigration Services. Counsel replied to the 
AAO's request on or about March 26, 2008. In response, counsel submitted a copy of an undated, unsigned 
brief and a two-page receipt from FedExKinko's. While the receipt indicates that the "Vaishali Corporation 
Brief' was produced by the FedExKinko's location at 325 7th Street NW, Washington, DC, on or about May 
15, 2007 and that counsel requested delivery to the AAO by 4:00 p.m. on May 15, 2007, the record does not 
establish that this brief was actually delivered to the AAO. Accordingly, it does not appear as if counsel has 
timely filed a brief in this matter, and the unsigned, undated brief faxed to the AAO on or about March 26, 
2008 will not be considered. 
To establish eligibility under section 10 1 (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 
1 
It should be noted that, according to Illinois state corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in Illinois 
is not in "good standing." Therefore, this would call into question the petitioner's continued eligibility for the 
benefit sought if the appeal were not being summarily dismissed. 
EAC 06 219 51872 
Page 3 
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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 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 this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. Counsel's assertion in the Form I-290B fails 
to identify any factual or legal errors for the AAO to consider on appeal. 
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. 9 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.