dismissed L-1A Case: Investment And Information Technology

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunw~~
invasionofpersonalpnvacy
PUBLICcopy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: LIN 0503651106 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER, Date: OEC 26 2001
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(15)(L)
ON 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.
~~~Robert P. iemann, Chief ,
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
LIN 0503651106
Page 2
DISCUSSION : The Director , Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily
dismissed.
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its chief executive officer
pursuant to section 101 (a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act . (the Act) , .8 U .S.C. §
1101(a)(15)(L). The petit ioner, a Texas corporation, is described as an investment company currently
operating an informat ion technology consulting bus iness and a grocery store . It claims to be a subsidiary of
Banbhore Ceramic Industries, located in Pakistan. The beneficiary was previously granted L-IA status to
work for the petitioner and the petitioner now seeks to exten~ his stay for three additional years. 1
The director denied the petition on March 1, 2005 , concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish that
the beneficiary would be employed by the U.S. company in a primarily managerial or executive capacity . '
The director observed that there were a number of discrepancies in the record between the petitioner's
assertioris and the submitted evidence , particularly with respect to the number of employees and their wages.
The director found that the unexplained discrepancies cast doubt on the bona fides of the petition and the
evidence as a whole.
. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on March 30 , 2005. The director declined to treat the appeal as a
motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review . On the Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal to the AAO ,
the petitioner states the following:
We believe that we can show very clearly why there are alleged discrepancies in the
documents ..Further we will show exactly all the numbers and how they add up to our claim in
the documents.
The petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that a brief and/or additional evidence would be sent to the AAO
within 30 days. As of this date, more than two years after the appeal was filed , no additional evidence has
. been submitted. 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 cont inuous year. Furthermore ,. the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States
I The beneficiary was prev iously granted L-1A status from July 29, 1999 until July 29 , 2000 (SRC 99187
51061) and from July 1 ,2000 until July 1,2002 (SRC 00 257 52377). The instant request for an extension of
the.beneficiary's L-l A status was filed on November 19 , 2004, more than two years after the expiration of the
beneficiary's previously accorded L-l A status. The petitioner explained that its former counsel had advised
the company that it was not necessary to file further extensions subsequent to the pet itioner's filing of a Form
1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on behalf of the beneficiary. The petitioner acknowledged the
error and requested that the delay in filing the instant petition .be excused.
,-,
LIN 0503651106
Page 3
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.
Regulations at 8 c.P.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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. .
. .
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. A review of
the director's decision dated March 1, 2005 reveals the director accurately and thoroughly set forth a specific,
legitimate basis for denial of the petition. On appeal, the petitioner has not specifically contested the grounds for
denial, identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, or submitted additional evidence. Going
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of
proof in these proceedings . Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of
Treasure Craft afCalifornia , 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972».
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. § 1361. 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 petitioner has
not sustained that burden .
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.