dismissed L-1A Case: Management And Investment Services

~dentirying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PWLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 02 245 55339 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
IN RE: 
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 1 101(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 office. 
Robert P. ~iemdn, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 245 55339 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner is a California corporation that claims to provide management and investment services. The 
petitioner filed this nonirnmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its chief executive officer as 
an L-1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $1 101(a)(15)(L). 
On August 20, 2002, the director denied the petition determining that the petitioner had not submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish: (1) that the foreign entity is a qualifying organization doing business abroad; 
(2) that a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer; or (3) 
that the beneficiary would be employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, and the director dismissed the motion on December 
12, 2002 without disturbing his August 20, 2002 decision. This timely appeal followed. 
On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, filed on January 10, 2003, counsel for the petitioner indicates that a brief 
and/or evidence would be submitted within 30 days. As of this date, the record does not contain a supplemental 
appellate brief or evidence. The statement on the Form I-290B reads: 
1. Sufficient evidence was submitted to establish that the foreign entity exists and is doing 
business. 
2. Sufficient evidence was submitted to establish the Beneficiary has been performing 
primarily as an executive and/or manager as defined by the USINS. 
3. Sufficient evidence was submitted to establish a ~arent/subsidiarv relations hi^ exists 
between , the parent, and [the petitioner], the subsidiary. 
4. Motion to reconsider was supported by documentary evidence and affidavits warranting its 
granting. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, 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." 
The petitioner does not identify an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in the director's decision 
as a basis for the appeal. The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence 
WAC 02 245 55339 
Page 3 
and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1 984); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in support of the appeal, the regulations mandate the 
summary dismissal of the appeal. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternative 
basis for denial. 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. $ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.