dismissed L-1A Case: Marble Import/Installation

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunw~ted
invasionofpersonalpnvaey
PUBLICcopy
u.s.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: SRC 04 026 50508 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 06 Z007
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L)
IN 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.
.. .... _-:-\• ..~ .... '. 'f..::-.-
Robert P :\Vieinann,Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
SRC 04 026 50508
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 appeal will be summarily dismissed .
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of its president/general
manager as an L-1A nonimmigrant 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 Florida and is allegedly engaged in the import, sale, and installation
of marble tiles .
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity.
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, counsel to the petitioner submitted additional
evidence and a letter referencing thereto . Counsel submitted subcontractor agreements , Forms W-4, social
security cards, and resumes. However , counsel did not explain in the letter the significance of this additional
evidence vis-a-vis the decision denying the petition, or more importantly, she did not identify any erroneous
conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's decision.
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
finn , 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. § 103.3(a)(1)(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 to the petitioner 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 counsel submitted
additional evidence regarding claimed subordinate workers, the submission of additional evidence on appeal
absent an articulation of the petitioner's grounds for appeal is insufficient under the regulations. In this
matter, as it is not clear what legal or factual error, if any, the additional evidence is intended to address, 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. § 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.