dismissed L-1A Case: Pharmaceutical Sales

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 03 039 5 191 9 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 7 2~5 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 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. 
~obert P. Wiemann, ~irecto; 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 03 039 51919 
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 is a pharmaceutical sales company. It seeks to extend its authorization to employ the 
beneficiary temporarily in the United States 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. 5 
1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The director determined that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying capacity for one year during the requisite time period. The 
director also determined that the record had not established that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity under an approved petition. 
On appeal, counsel requests an additional 90 days in which to submit an appellate brief. However, over one 
year and four months since that request was made, neither counsel nor the petitioner have submitted any 
additional evidence or information to support the appeal. In the few brief statements submitted on the appeal 
Form I-290B, counsel claimed that the director failed to consider the documentation submitted in the 
petitioner's response to the director's request for additional evidence. Contrary to counsel's assertion, the 
director's decision specifically names the documents submitted by the petitioner and thoroughly explains why 
the submitted evidence has been deemed insufficient for establishing the beneficiary's eligibility for 
classification of an L-1A nonimmigrant. 
Counsel also states that the director "improperly applied the regulations in denying the petition due to 
untimely filing." However, this argument too is without merit, as nowhere in the director's decision is there 
any mention of the filing date of the petition. The director's entire decision was based on the petitioner's 
failure to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. There is absolutely no indication that the director took into consideration 
the noted discrepancy between the validity date on the beneficiary's latest Form 1-94 and the dates indicated 
in the beneficiary's Form I-797A. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
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. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an 
LIN 03 039 51919 
Page 3 
I 
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.