dismissed L-1A Case: Property Maintenance

identifying data deleted to
prevent clearly unw~ted
.invasionof personalonv8£Y
PUBUCCopy
u.s. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: SRC 05 011 50865 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 20 200/
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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.
cLROb!~~~
/ Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
SRC 05 011 50865
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 states that it operates a vacation rental property maintenance service. It seeks to employ the
beneficiary temporarily in the United States as the vice president of its new office. The director denied the
petition based on the conclusion that the petitioner (1) failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed
in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; and (2) failed to secure sufficient physical premises so that it
could conduct business.
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form 1-290B that it would submit a brief and/or additional
evidence to address the director's denial within 30 days. Although counsel submitted a brief statement on the
Form 1-290B, it failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. Inthis brief statement, counsel states:
"We believe that our petition is supported by the facts of our business operation in the US company and the
foreign company."
The director, however, did a thorough analysis and specifically discussed the documentary evidence
submitted in the record, and counsel's general objection to the denial of the petition, without specifically
identifying any errors on the part of the director, is simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and
logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. Going on record
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in
these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)).
On the Notice of Appeal received on November 29, 2004, counsel clearly indicates that he would send a brief
with the necessary evidence to the AAO within thirty days. According to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i), the
petitioner "shall file the complete appeal including any supporting brief with the office where the unfavorable
decision was made within 30 days after service of the decision," which in the case at hand would be no later
than December 9, 2004. Although the petitioner requested additional time to submit its arguments on appeal,
to date there is no indication or evidence that the petitioner ever submitted a brief and/or evidence in support
of the appeal with the Service or with the AAO.
On April 7, 2006, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief had been
received in this matter, and requested that counsel submit a copy of the originally submitted brief and/or
additional evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. As of the date of
this decision, no brief or response from counsel has been received. Accordingly, the record will be
considered complete.
As stated above, absent a timely filed clear statement, brief and/or evidence to the contrary, the petitioner
does not identify, specifically, an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in support of the appeal.
Hence, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v).
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 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.
SRC 05 011 50865
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. § 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.