dismissed L-1A Case: It Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 13134330 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 17, 2020 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a business information technology consulting firm, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a project manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L) , 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director , Texas Service Center, denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not establish that 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
The Director further determined the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the 
Petitioner marked Box 1.b. in Part 2, indicating that it would submit a brief and/or additional evidence 
to this office within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal. It also stated in the part 7 of the appeal that 
"we will be submitting an Attorney brief within 30 calendar days regarding this appeal." The record 
reflects that the Petitioner did not submit a brief or any additional evidence since filing the appeal 
more than 30 days prior. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as presently constituted. 
Upon review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, 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. 
The Petitioner only submitted a generic statement with the Form I-290B stating that the Director "erred 
in concluding that the evidence provided in the petition did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's 
qualifying position abroad and his proposed position in the United States meet the statutory and 
regulatory requirements for L-lA classification ." Similarly, the Petitioner vaguely states on appeal 
that the Director "incorrectly applied the standard of proof as required by the regulations ." 
The Petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact as 
a basis for the appeal. The Petitioner only submits generic statements on appeal that do not specifically 
address why the Director's conclusions were in error. A petitioner filing an appeal is required to 
provide a statement specifically identifying an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision 
being appealed. However, the Petitioner only states that the evidence meets "the statutory and 
regulatory requirements" without discussing any of this provided evidence. Likewise, the Petitioner 
contends that the Director "incorrectly applied the standard of proof as required by the regulations;" 
but again, it does not articulate the standard of proof or how the Director misapplied it. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not submitted a brief: evidence, or other statements that specifically articulate or 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility, or which clearly address errors on the part of the Director. 
Therefore, consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2