dismissed L-1A Case: Jewelry

identifying data deleted to 
 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
prevent clearly unwarranleo 
 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.w., ~m. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of persod pfiva) 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
G mPY 
File: EAC 07 258 51026 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 3 0 2009 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 10 1 (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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
r/ 
John F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 258 5 1026 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of the beneficiary as an 
L-1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is allegedly engaged in the jewelry 
business. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on January 22,2008. 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 that "additional documentations and explanations" would be submitted to the AAO within 30 
days. 
However, as no brief or additional evidence was ever received by the AAO, the AAO sent a facsimile to 
counsel on July 2, 2008. The facsimile requested that counsel send a copy of the brief and additional 
evidence to the AAO within five business days along with evidence of the date the materials were originally 
filed with the AAO. 
On July 8, 2008, counsel faxed a copy of a six-page brief to the AAO. While this brief is dated February 10, 
2008, counsel did not submit any evidence that this brief was submitted to the AAO prior to faxing it on July 
8, 2008. Furthermore, as the brief refers twice to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
decision dated April 8, 2008, it appears that this brief was prepared, in whole or in part, subsequent to 
February 10, 2008. Therefore, it does not appear as if this brief was sent to the AAO until aRer a facsimile 
was sent to counsel on July 2,2008 noting its absence. 
It is noted that the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(vi) permit an affected party to file a brief with the 
Form I-290B. 
 The AAO may grant an affected party additional time to file a brief. 
 See 8 C.F.R. $ 
103.3(a)(2)(vii). Consistent with the discretion described in 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(vii), the Form I-290B 
extends to all appellants the option of submitting a brief andlor additional evidence directly to the AAO 
within 30 days. However, as is clear in the regulations, any extensions of time greater than 30 days require a 
showing of "good cause." In this matter, the record is devoid of evidence of "good cause" supporting the 
filing of a brief almost six months after the filing of the appeal, especially in light of counsel's apparent 
attempt to mislead the AAO on the date the brief was initially submitted. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider the brief faxed by counsel on July 8,2008. 
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 
EAC 07 258 5 1026 
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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
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. 
In this matter, the Form I-290B fails to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding. As the brief submitted on July 8,2008 will not be considered by the AAO, the appeal 
must be summarily dismissed. 
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. 3 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.