dismissed L-1A Case: Party Supplies

idcntifyidabdsletedto 
prtvmt clearly unwmtsd 
invd of paroorl privacy 
pul3UC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 04 248 5 1377 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: OlJr 2 3 
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) 
IN 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 248 5 1377 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 is a California corporation allegedly engaged in the business of renting and selling party 
supplies. The petitioner seeks to extend the employment of the beneficiary as its general manager as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. 
 The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel to the petitioner states in the Form I-290B 
the following: 
The decision appealed from applies an improper standard of law, one not authorized by 
the INA, the Regulations promulgated thereunder, and the cases interpreting the statute 
and Regulations and is, consequently, arbitrary and capricious. 
Counsel further states that a brief or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of the date 
of this decision, the AAO has received nothing further and the record will be considered complete.' 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof 
in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(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. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. While counsel to the petitioner asserted that 
'On July 20,2006, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief had ever 
been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief andlor additional evidence, 
if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. As of the date of this decision, the 
AAO has received no response from counsel or the petitioner. 
WAC 04 248 5 1377 
Page 3 
the director's decision was legally erroneous, he failed to specifically identify the alleged legal error. 
Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.