dismissed L-1A Case: Jewelry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
ideuutyhg Jaia uereted to 
prevent clearly unwarrankdl 
h-afgersaoal 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SEWICE CENTER Date: 4UB 1 2 2uc5 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 11 01(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 ofice. 
obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Appeals Office 
m 
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 states that it operates as a jewelry trader. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the 
United States as its President, pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel simply asserts: "We will be submitting further evidence, which 
establishes that the beneficiary will be working in a managerial capacity." Counsel indicated that he would be 
sending a brief and/or evidence to the AAO within 30 days. The appeal was filed on January 20,2004. As of 
June 21, 2005, 17 months after the date of filing, the AAO had received no further correspondence from 
counsel or the petitioner. On June 2 1,2005, the AAO sent notification to counsel by facsimile that no further 
materials had been received in connection with the appeal, and affording counsel five business days to 
respond before a decision is rendered. As of the date of this decision, the AAO has received no further 
evidence or correspondence from counsel or the petitioner. Thus, counsel's statement on appeal is limited to 
the sentence on Form I-290B as quoted above. Counsel fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion 
of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
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 
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. 9 103.3(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 counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proceeding, 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.