dismissed L-1A Case: Packaging Materials

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
<, )) <:%' 
. i. ,,i,i?d*- U.S. Citizenship 
@+", .* ..? A &- % and Immigration 
FILE: w 8AC 04 021 50179 Office: CALLFO~A SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 I IOl(a)(l5)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETTTIONER: 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 021 50179 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant 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 engaged in the import and distribution of packaging materials and machines. It 
seeks to extend the employment of its president as an L-1A nonirnrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant 
to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office in the United States and the 
petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. The director denied the petition based on the conclusion 
that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary had been and would likewise be employed in the 
United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel filed Form I-290B, and submitted a brief statement which provides: 
[CIS] erred in the decision as a matter of fact in ignoring information and documentation 
provided. [CIS] erred as a matter of law in their interpretation of INA Section 101(a)(15)(L). 
The petitioner'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 simply insufficient to overcome the 
well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. 
1 Going on record without supporting documentary evidencc 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. Comrn. 
1972). 
On the appeal received on January 14,2003, counsel for the petitioner indicates that he would not be submitting a 
brief or any additional evidence in support of the appeal, and more than the time allowed and requested has 
elapsed. 8 C.F.R. 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. Q: 
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 speci,ficaEly any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. (Emphasis added). 
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. ($ 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.