dismissed L-1A Case: News Media

U.S. 'Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave N W. Rm A3042 
.,, Washington, DC 20529 
U. S, Citizenship 
and Immigration ;'t9 ~2 ;&A%; 
r%~vaaka, 
5nm&g,~,> ; 0 ,, 4 4 $$d$yfgi:; ? 
k5&Ae 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEWLF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the desisiorr 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 effice. 
fobert P. Wiernann, ~ireLtor 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 news media services company. It seeks to temporarily employ the 
beneficiary in the United States as its chief editor. The director denied the petition based on the 
conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the new office would have sufficient staff after its 
first year of operations to relieve the beneficiary from performing day-to-day, non-managerial tasks, and 
consequently, the benefiqiary would not be acting primarily in a managerial or executive capacity as 
required by the regulatio&. Specifically, the director noted that the business plans submitted were not 
detailed, consisted only of brief statements, and failed to reasonably outline the projected growth of the 
U.S. petitioner during the first year of operations. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated that it would be submitting a brief and/or additional 
evidence addressing the director's denial within 30 days. Although counsel submitted a brief statement 
on the Form I-290B, the statement is confusing and fails to adequately address the director's conclusions. 
Specifically, counsel for the petitioner states: 
Application of correct legal standards to determine eligibility of L-1 Nonimmigrant 
worker classification for the U.S. subsidiary of parent company based in India. The 
decision demonstrates a bias against the U.S. subsidiary's ability to operate in the first 
year sf its approval of intra-company transfer. Provide additional evidence of U.S. 
subsidiary efforts to acquire land and realestate [sic], including but not limited to 
hotel/nlotel lease to perform at a level sufficient to generate employment. 
Counsel's general objections on the Form I-290B are unclear and fail to specifically identify any errors on 
the part of the director. The mere filing of the Form I-290B is insufficient to overcome the well-founded 
and logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. 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). 
On review, the record as presently constituted is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has 
been or will be zmployed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner indicates that it 
plans to engage in other business activities, such as real estate and hotels. However, 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no provision in CIS regulations that 
allows for an extension of this one-year period. If the business is not sufficiently operational after one 
year, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extension. In the instant matter, the petitioner bas not 
reached the point that it can employ the beneficiary in a predominantly managerial or executive position. 
On the appeal received on July 29, 2003, counsel for the petitioner indicates, that it would be sending a 
brief and/or evidence to the AAO within 30 days. Counsel for the petitioner has filed no further brief or 
evidence with the director or the AAO, and more than the time allowed and requesked has elapsed. 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(i) and (viii). As stated above, the petitioner does not identify, specifically, any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. Hence, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
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. 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.