dismissed L-1A Case: Oil And Gas

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6575080 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV. 7, 2019 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an oil and gas merchandising and property management company, 
seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its vice president under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section l 0l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or 
other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the 
United States to work temporarily in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended 
petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the 
Petitioner marked Box 1.b. in Part 2, indicating that it would submit a brief and/or additional evidence 
to this office within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal. The record reflects that the Petitioner has 
not submitted a brief or any additional evidence since filing the appeal more than 30 days prior. 
Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as presently constituted. 
Upon review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
As noted, the Petitioner has not provided a brief or additional evidence in support of the appeal. The 
Petitioner only submitted a generic statement with the Form I-290B indicating that the Director 
"erred;" and that they "did not consider the petitioner's evidence ... [and] failed to provide a well ­
reasoned analysis." Similarly, the Petitioner vaguely stated that the Director's decision was 
"subjective, arbitrary, and capricious" and that the Director's conclusion "goes against the evidence 
and the legal definition ." 
The Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as 
a basis for the appeal, but only provided generic statements on appeal that do not specifically address 
why the Director's conclusion was in error. For instance, in denying the decision, the Director pointed 
to the Beneficiary's duty description, analyzed it in detail, and concluded that it provided insufficient 
detail and little insight into her role. 1 The Director farther noted that the Beneficiary's duty description 
provided few specifics, provided no context within the Petitioner's specific business and operations, 
and that it did not sufficiently demonstrate that she would act in a managerial or executive capacity. 
In fact, the Director attempted to address this deficiency in a request for evidence (RFE) that pointed 
to the generic nature of the Beneficiary's duties and requested a duty description with concrete detail 
as to her daily managerial or executive duties. In response, the Petitioner only responded that "[the 
Petitioner respectfully submit[ s] that the Service's observation that the description of the beneficiary's 
job duties is too general and vague goes against the record of these proceedings." As such, the 
Petitioner provided no additional detail as to the Beneficiary's previous or proposed duties under the 
extended petition as requested. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's assessment of the Beneficiary's duties. The Petitioner did 
not submit a sufficiently detailed duty description describing the Beneficiary's day-to-day managerial 
or executive-level duties to credibly establish that she devoted her time primarily to qualifying tasks 
as of the date the petition was filed. The Beneficiary's duty description includes several generic duties 
that could apply to any manager or executive acting in any business or industry and they do not provide 
insight into the actual nature of her role. The Petitioner provided insufficient examples and supporting 
documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of qualifying duties, such as 
"operational policies and procedures" she set, "sales and marketing strategies" she put in place, 
"logistics or carriers" she supervised, customers she worked with, or "logistics management policies 
and procedures" she implemented. 
Likewise, the Petitioner did not detail or document risks the Beneficiary mitigated, "financial policies" 
she established, "complex agreements" she negotiated, fonds she allocated, "strategic alliances" she 
formed, or "acquisition strategies" she developed. In fact, the record includes no documentary 
evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's daily activities or her delegation of duties to her claimed 
subordinates. This lack of detail is notable as the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been acting 
as its vice president for nearly five since August 2013. 2 Specifics are clearly an important indication 
of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial or executive in nature, otherwise meeting 
the definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
A petitioner filing an appeal is required to provide a statement that specifically identifies an erroneous 
conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed. For instance, the Petitioner did not 
specifically address the Director's conclusion that the Beneficiary's duties were generic and 
insufficient in response to the RFE and again does not specifically address this issue on appeal. It only 
vaguely labels the Director's decision as not "well-reasoned," as "subjective, arbitrary, and 
capricious," and "against the evidence and the legal definition." However, the Petitioner does not 
1 We note that this was only one evidentiary deficiency addressed by the Director in the decision. Given the lack of a 
sufficient statement on the appeal, a brief, or additional evidence, we decline to address the other deficiencies on the record. 
2 The petition was filed on May 22, 2018. 
2 
submit a brief, evidence, or other statements specifically articulated or demonstrating why this is the 
case. Therefore, consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
3