dismissed L-1A Case: Plastics Manufacturing

U.S. Department of Homeland SecuriQ 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC-04-014-50627 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 7 2006 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101 (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. 
-_r 
,"--- 
",,"' 
Robert P. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC-04-014-50627 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnrnigrant visa. The 
matter is n~ow before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner asserts that it is a plastics manufacturing and export company. 
 It seeks to extend its 
authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its chief executive officer. The 
director denied the petition based on the petitioner's failure to establish the following: 1) that the beneficiary 
has been and will continue to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; or 2) that the beneficiary 
has not exceeded the seven-year limit in L nonimrnigrant status. 
On appeal, counsel requested an additional 30 days in which to submit a brief addressing the director's denial. 
However, no brief or additional evidence was ever received and, as such, the record will be considered 
complete. 
Counsel for petitioner failed to provide any additional evidence or a brief explaining the inconsistencies noted 
in the petition. This fact is determinative, particularly in light of the director's detailed list of reasons for 
denying the petition. The record shows a number of inconsistencies, as pointed out by the director, and fails 
to establish key elements of eligibility such as a qualifying relationship and the employment capacity of the 
beneficiary. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of No, 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). In the instant case, counsel fails to acknowledge, much less resolve the 
inconsistencies discussed in the denial. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 6 1 101 (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. (j 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
Hn 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. 
On the 1-290B, counsel simply states that the "[bleneficiary has satisfied as a manager/executive for L-1 
purposes and may not have exceeded the 7 year limit." This statement and has no basis in fact or law and, 
more importantly, fails to specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal. The petitioner has the burden of establishing eligibility and, on appeal, must identify an erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact. In this case the petitioner has not done so. In light of the clearly 
detailed and well reasoned decision of the director, the petitioner's single statement is insufficient to warrant a 
review of the record, much less a sustained appeal in this matter. 
 I 
WAC-04-0 14-50627 
Page 3 
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. 4 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.