dismissed L-1A Case: Logistics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W , Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC 05 086 52056 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
DEC 0 5 2886 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 086 52056 
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 AAO will summarily dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of its finance director 
as an L-1A nonimrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws 
of the State of Texas and is allegedly a logistics business. The petitioner claims a qualifying relationship with 
Especialistas en Aduanas Y Comercio Exterior S.C. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period 
of stay to open a new office in the United States, and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign employer. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a brief and additional 
evidence. However, the petitioner does not identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
made by the director. 
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 howledge capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 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. While the petitioner provided additional evidence 
regarding its purported qualifying relationship with the foreign entity, additional evidence cannot be 
submitted on appeal where, as here, a petitioner was on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and was given 
an opportunity to respond to that deficiency. The director specifically requested evidence of ownership and 
control of the petitioner and the foreign entity in the Request for Evidence dated February 15, 2005. The 
AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 
(BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the 
submitted evidence to be considered, it shouId have submitted the documents in response to the director's 
SRC 05 086 52056 
Page 3 
request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency 
of the evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be 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. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.