dismissed L-1A Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U, S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC-04-042-5 13 1 1 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 7 2006 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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 yourcase. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
* - 
kR 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC-04-042-5 13 1 1 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 is a manufacturer of stainless steel products. It seeks to employ the beneficia~y 
temporarily in the United States as its manager. The director denied the petition based on the conclusion that 
the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
In addition the director noted numerous inconsistencies in the record which undermined the petitioner's 
claims. 
On appeal, counsel1 requested an additional 30 days in which to submit a brief addressing the director's 
denial. The appeal was filed on April 19, 2004. As of this date, the AAO has received nothing Wher and 
the record will be considered complete. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel simply repeats the claim that the petitioner is eligible for the benefit 
sought. However, the director did a thorough analysis and specifically discussed inconsistencies among a 
number of the submitted documents. Counsel's general objections to the denial of the petition, without 
specifically identifying any errors on the part of the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the well- 
founded and logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. The 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); 
Matter Of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972). 
In addition, the record shows a number of inconsistencies, including the number of employees petitioner has 
and what the beneficiary's actual duties will be. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). In the instant case, counsel fails to 
acknowledge, much less resolve the inconsistencies discussed in the denial. In addition, the AAO would note 
basic deficiencies in the petition, such as the failure to include an L supplement with the 1-129 application and 
the failure to address the qualifying criteria required for an L-1A petition. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. $ 11 01(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
1 
 Neither the petitioner nor counsel submitted an Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative (Form 
G-28) in this matter. Absent a properly executed Form G-28, counsel's representation of the petitioner may 
not be recognized, and any assertions made by counsel in this proceeding will not be considered. See 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(3). 
WAC-04-042-5 13 1 1 
Page 3 
by a qualifying organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
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. 
Ln 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. Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an 
erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not sustained that 
burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.