dismissed L-1A Case: Medical Supplies

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, Rm. A3042.425 1 Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 02 159 537 16 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN :) 6 lm 
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. 8 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 
'u 
EAC 02 159 537 16 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was revoked by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner was established in 1994 as a distributor and reseller of medical supplies. The 
petitioner claims to be a joint venture with (Russia). The petitioner seeks to 
employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as the head of its legal department. The 
director determined that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that the beneficiary had 
been or would be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity, or that the U.S. entity 
could support such a position. 
On appeal, counsel indicated that he would submit a brief andfor evidence to the AAO within 30 
days. The notice of appeal is dated January 31, 2003. To date, the AAO has not received any 
additional evidence. Therefore, the record is considered complete. 
Counsel stated in the notice of appeal that the director's decision was based upon an incomplete 
analysis of the beneficiary's duties, the petitioner's requirements, and the requirements of INA. 
Although counsel claims that the director's decision was based upon an incomplete analysis of the 
beneficiary's duties, the petitioner's requirements, and the requirements of INA, a review of the 
record by AAO shows that the decision to deny the petition was based upon a thorough review of the 
record and expIanations presented by counsel and the petitioner, and a correct application of law. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(v) states in part: 
Summary dismissal. 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. 
As counsel has failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought rests solely with 
the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.