dismissed L-1A Case: Party Supplies Rental

U.S. Department of tiurneland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
WAC 03 078 5 1854 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
According to the documentary evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was incorporated in December 
of 2002 and claims to be a party supplies rental business. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of 
located in Brazil. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary 
temporarily in the United States as president and general manager of its new office for one year, at a yearly 
salary of $30,000.00. 
The director determined that the petitioner had failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary had been employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the filing of the instant petition. See 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The director noted that the record demonstrated the beneficiary began employment with the foreign entity 
January 5, 2002. The director further noted that the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) records 
showed that the beneficiary has been in the United States in a B2 visitor for pleasure nonimmigrant 
classification since January 18,2002, which was only thirteen days after being employed at the foreign entity. 
The director stated that a preponderance of the beneficiary's duties involved directly providing the services of 
the business. The director further stated that the petitioner failed to provide a comprehensive descript~on of 
the beneficiary's duties that would demonstrate that he had been supervising and controlling the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees who relieve him from performing non-quaIifying duties, 
or managing the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or componenl of the company abroad. 
The director concluded that the foreign entity had only employed the beneficiary as a purchasing and supplies 
manager for thirteen days, which is less than the statutory requirement of one continuous year of employment. 
The director further stated that although the beneficiary remained on the foreign entity's payroll while in the 
United States, there was nothing in the record to show that the beneficiary worked for or was in contact with 
the company abroad. 
On appeal, counsel indicated that he would submit a brief andlor evidence to the AAO within 30 days of the 
Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal is dated September 18, 2003. To date, the AAO has not received any 
additional evidence. Therefore, the record is considered complete. 
Counsel asserts in the notice of appeal: "The facts recited in the Notice of Denial are incorrect; and, 
consequently, the applicable law was in error." 
Counsel fails to address the issues raised by the director regarding the lack of evidence in the record to 
establish that the beneficiary had been employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
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. 
WAC 03 078 5 1854 
Page 3 
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.