dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate

· identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLtCCOpy 
DATE: MAY 1 8 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section IOJ(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 V.S.c. § IIOI(a)(l5)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I lei) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the beneficiary's employment as an L-I A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101 (a)( IS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § I 101 (a)(I5)(L). The petitioner, a Florida corporation, is self-described as a real 
estate investment and development firm. It claims to be a subsidiary of 
located in the United Kingdom. The petitioner has employed the beneficiary as its president since February 
2006 and now seeks to extend his L-I A status for three additional years. 
The director denied the petition on May 13, 2009, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
In denying the petition, the director observed that the petitioner failed to provide a detailed and specific 
description of the beneficiary's day-to-day job duties, and failed to establish that the company employs a 
subordinate staff who would relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties necessary for the 
operation of business. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner indicates on the Form 1-290B, Notice 
of Appeal or motion, that it "is in the process of compiling all the requested documents and seeks 30 days 
time to submit all the required documents." The petitioner filed the appeal on June 5, 2009. As of this date, 
no brief or additional evidence has been submitted, and the record will be considered complete. 
To establish eligibility for the L-I nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section IOI(a)(IS)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, 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. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(I)(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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. The 
petitioner has not identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director as a 
basis for the appeal, but simply indicates that it will provide additional documentation which has yet to be 
submitted. 
Page 3 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has not identified specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
as a basis for the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(\)(v). 
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. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.