dismissed L-1A Case: Pharmaceutical Sales

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
'Pv* O~PDCIQY~ pcivacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
48 
File: LIN 04 183 5 1734 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 2 3 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101 (a)(] 5)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
- > ,--" / 44- 
~obeh. Wiernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 183 5 1734 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of its general manager 
as an L- 1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws 
of the State of Michigan and i 
 in the business of pharmaceutical sales. The petitioner 
claims that it is the subsidiary o 
 f Slovenia. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that there is a qualifying 
relationship between the petitioner and the foreign employer. 
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, the petitioner attached a letter dated January 18, 
2004 indicating the petitioner's desire to appeal the January 6, 2005 decision. The letter provides a summary 
of the petitioner's business, the foreign employer's operations, and the beneficiary's experience. 
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. 9 103.3(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 the petitioner may have summarized 
its case in a letter, it failed to provide any additional evidence for the AAO to consider or to identify any 
errors in this proceeding. 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 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.