dismissed L-1A Case: Money Transfer

3tientiifying aaur wmr*. rx 
pmt &&y ~PYWUTSILW+ 
~ndm dm- 
U.S. Deparlment of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042, 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 02 135 50644 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: HAY 1 1 2003 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Ej 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. Wiemann, ~irect6r 
b 
dministrative Appeals Office 
SRC 02 135 50644 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider, which was also denied by the director. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner claims that it plans to set up an international money transferring business. It seeks to employ 
the beneficiary temporarily in the United States in the position of president as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L). The director based the denial on the following conclusions: 1) the petitioner 
failed to establish that it had secured sufficient premises on which to conduct its business; 2) the petitioner did 
not submit sufficient evidence to establish that it would support a managerial or executive position within one 
year of approval of the instant petition; and 3) the petitioner failed to submit documentation to indicate that it 
had a feasible business plan. 
In response to the denial the petitioner submitted a motion to reopen and reconsider. In support of the motion 
the petitioner submitted a copy of the petitioner's business lease, which commenced on March 20, 2002, one 
week prior to filing the petition. The petitioner also submitted a number of bank statements to support the 
claim that it has sufficient funds to commence doing business. 
The director subsequently addressed the evidence submitted by the petitioner on motion and denied the 
motion, concluding that none of the leases submitted were current as of the date the motion was filed. 
Furthermore, the director addressed all of the documentation the petitioner submitted to show its own 
financial status and concluded that most of the relevant bank statements were poorly photocopied and were 
therefore illegible. Finally, the director stated that even though the petitioner submitted a business plan, it 
failed to submit any documentary evidence to show that the plan was feasible and would be realized in the 
near future. 
On appeal, the petitioner merely states that it submitted sufficient evidence upon which to base an approval of 
the petition. Despite the director's thorough explanation in the latest denial, the beneficiary maintains the 
claim that he submitted sufficient evidence to overcome all of the director's objections. The beneficiary failed 
to address any of the director's specific objections or to provide any evidence to overcome such objections. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. $ 1 lOl(a)(lS)(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 
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. 
SRC 02 135 50644 
Page 3 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Ej 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.