dismissed L-1A Case: Janitorial Services

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 03 230 51567 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: p@& ii i'g@ 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(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 been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
/: L4;~ 
R6bert P. Wiemann, Direct 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
a-, 
LJ 
SRC 02 230 5 1567 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 states that it is a janitorial services company. It seeks to extend its authorization to employ 
the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its president. The director denied the petition based on 
the conclusion that the petitioner failed ito establish that the beneficiary has been and will continue to be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that it would submit a brief andor additional evidence 
to address the director's denial within 30 days. Although the petitioner submitted a brief statement on the 
Form I-290B, it failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In this brief statement, the 
petitioner states that the director did not take into consideration the evidentiary documentation sent by the 
petitioner in support of the petition. The petitioner identifies this relevant documentation as a statement 
by the petitioner regarding the beneficiary's duties as well as a flowchart which demonstrates the 
beneficiary's position and the manner in which she supervises the petitioner's other employees. 
However, the director did a thorough analysis and specifically discussed the flowchart in the decision. 
Furthermore, the director restated the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's duties and the 
percentage of time devoted to each, and pointedly discussed the inconsistencies among these documents 
and the requirements of the regulations. The petitioner's general objections on the Form I-290B, without 
specifically identifying any errors on the part of the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the well- 
founded and logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. 
Going on record without supporting doci~mentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Cvaft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972). 
On the Notice of Appeal received on December 23, 2003, the petitioner clearly indicates that it would 
send a brief with the necessary evidence [to the AAO] within thirty days. According to 8 C.F.R. fj 
103.3(a)(2)(i), the petitioner "shall file the complete appeal including any supporting brief with the office 
where the unfavorable decision was made within 30 days after service of the decision," which in the case 
at hand would be no later than Wednesday, January 7, 2004. While the petitioner may request that it be 
granted additional time to submit an appeal, no such request was made in this case. See 8 C.F.R. fj 
103.3(a)(2)(vii). Even if additional time to submit a brief in support of the appeal had been requested and 
approved, to date there is no indication or evidence that the petitioner ever submitted a brief andor 
evidence in support of the appeal with the Service or with the AAO. As stated above, absent a clear 
statement, brief and/or evidence to the contrary, the petitioner does not identify, specifically, and 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. Hence, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. See 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
SRC 02 230 51567 
Page 3 
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. 
Contrary to the petitioner's assertions, the facts of the case do not speak for themselves, particularly in 
light of the director's detailed list of reasons for denying the petition. Rather, the record shows a number 
of deficiencies, including the petitioner's failure to submit any evidence establishing that it employs the 
staff required to support the beneficiary's managerial or executive position. Failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.2@)(14). In the instant case, the petitioner fails to acknowledge or address the director's reasons for 
the denial. Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
Moreover, it should be noted for the record that in addition to the reasons issued by the director in the 
denial, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that it met the requirement of "doing business" for the previous 
year fi-om the date of filing of the extension request. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(i)(B). According to 8 
C.F.R. 9 214.2(l)(ii)(H), "doing business" is defined as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision 
of goods andlor services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent 
or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad." The petitioner admits in its 
letter dated August 16, 2003 that the U.S. entity "began operations in The [sic] United States in 2003." 
This admission by the petitioner combined with (1) the lack of evidence submitted with regard to the 
company's business operations in the United States for the past year and (2) the fact that the U.S. 
company's sole employee at the time, the beneficiary, did not enter the United States to assume her duties 
until December 8, 2002 clearly demonstrates that the petitioner did not and could not meet the 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. $214.2(1)(14)(i)(B) by the time the initial L-1 Petition expired on September 1, 
2003. For this reason alone, the petition rnust be denied. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the "new office" operation one year within the date 
of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no provision in CIS 
regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year period. If the business does not have sufficient 
staffing after one year to relieve the beneficiary fi-om primarily performing operational and administrative 
tasks, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extension. 
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. Inasmuch as counsel 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.