dismissed L-1A Case: Publishing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
\ 
FILE: SRC-03-258-5 1279 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ,lUN 0 1 2006 
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)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC-03-258-5 1279 
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 is a publishing business opening a new office. It seeks authorization to employ the 
beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its manager. The director denied the petition because the 
petitioner had not responded to the Request for Evidence, there was evidence that the beneficiary was 
employed in the United States without authorization, and the petitioner had not established the following 
factors: 1) that the petitioner had secured a premises sufficient for housing the new business; or 2) that a 
qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. and foreign entities. 
On appeal, counsel requested an additional 30 days in which to submit a brief addressing the director's denial. 
Counsel submitted "supporting documents" 10 days past the extension deadline requested on the I-290B, but 
failed to submit a brief. Absent a brief the counsel has failed to address the director's conclusions. 
The record shows a number of inconsistencies, violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and 
inappropriate representations by counsel. 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 Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
 In the instant case, counsel for the petitiner fails to 
acknowledge or attempt to resolve the inconsistencies contained in the record or correct the inappropriate 
representations. Nor has the petitioner specifically identified an erroneous fact or conclusion of law by the 
director. 
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 lOl(a)(lS)(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. $ 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 eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. As stated, counsel did not submit a brief and did not 
specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. Thus, the petitioner 
has not sustained its burden and the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.