dismissed L-1A Case: Jewelry Trading

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying u;r bi.;rea to 
preveut dearly unwarraw 
 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration 
h&on of personal pdvaq 
PUB%I&II COPY 
FILE: 
 EAC 04 026 54 13 I Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JUL 1 0 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 026 54 13 1 
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 is a New York corporation that claims to be engaged in jewelry trading. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as chief executive officer of its new office in the United States pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. €j 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition 
concluding that the petitioner had not established: (1) that the beneficiary was employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity with the foreign entity; or (2) that the beneficiary would be employed by the 
petitioner in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on July 26, 2004. 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, counsel for 
the petitioner indicated that she would send a brief andlor evidence to the AAO within 30 days. Counsel did 
not state the reason for the appeal on the Form I-290B. As no additional evidence has been incorporated into 
the record, the AAO contacted counsel by facsimile on April 28, 2006 to request that counsel acknowledge 
whether the brief and/or evidence were timely submitted, and, if applicable, to afford counsel an opportunity 
to re-submit the documents. To date, no response has been received. Accordingly, the record is now complete. 
To establish eligibility under section lOl(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. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. €j 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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
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 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.