dismissed L-1A Case: Printing And Graphic Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: fiAy 2 2 i@l 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOl(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 IOl(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner, claims to be a subsidiary- located 
a printing and graphic arts business and was 
incorporated on September 12. 2001. The petitioner seeks to hire the beneficiary as a new 
employee to open its U.S. office. Accordingly, on April 23, 2002, the U.S. entity petitioned 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee (L-1A) pursuant to section IOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L), as an executive or manager for one year. 
The petitioner endeavors to employ the beneficiary's services as the U.S. entity's general 
manager. 
On April 25, 2003, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish the following: 1) the new office will support an executive or managerial 
position within one year of approval; 2) the foreign entity has been doing business abroad; and, 3) 
the beneficiary has been and will be employed in a primarily executive or managerial position. 
On May 27, 2003, the petitioner appealed the director's decision. On appeal, counsel simply 
states: "It is the prospective employer's belief that further clarification of the documentary 
evidence under the law, supplemented by additional verification, will demonstrate that sufficient 
legal and factual grounds exist to approve the 1-129." Although counsel indicates on the Form I- 
290B that a brief would be submitted within 30 days, counsel did not indicate why the brief 
would be submitted late or otherwise provide good cause for the requested extension. As of this 
date, the record does not contain a supplemental appellate brief. Regardless, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.3(a)(2)(vii), counsel's request for additional time to submit a brief is denied as a matter of 
discretion for failure to show cause. Therefore, 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. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part, that an appeal shall be 
summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion 
of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
Inasmuch as counsel failed to identify an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily 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. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not 
met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.