dismissed L-1A Case: Marketing

identmng data deleted to 
preese%t,i clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 7 
File: SRC 04 178 52360 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 2 2 20116 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. 
7-~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 178 52360 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the intracompany transferee nonimmigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner claims to also be known a 
 corporation organized in the State of Florida 
in November 2003. It claims it is in the marketing industry. It seeks to temporarily employ the beneficiary as its 
marketing and finance manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The director denied the petition on February 15, 2005, determining that the petitioner had not: (1) established 
a qualifying relationship between the foreign and U.S. companies; (2) described the beneficiary's foreign 
employment; or (3) provided sufficient evidence of its capitalization. The director concluded that the 
petitioner had not met the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3) when the petition was filed. 
On March 15, 2005, the petitioner submitted a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, indicating that a brief andlor 
evidence would be submitted within 30 days. The petitioner did not indicate why the brief would be 
submitted late or otherwise provide good cause for the requested extension. To date, careful review of the 
record reveals no subsequent submission; all other documentation in the record predates the issuance of the 
notice of decision. Regardless, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(vii), the petitioner's request for additional 
time to submit a brief is denied as a matter of discretion for failure to show good cause. The petitioner's 
statement on the Form I-290B reads: 
I am appealing this decision because I will submit the evidence you are aslng for. 
To establish L-1 eligibility, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 
 1101(a)(15)(L). 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. Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $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." 
Inasmuch, as the petitioner fails to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, 
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 
SRC 04 178 52360 
Page 3 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.