dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate / Construction

~
identifyingdatadeleted~
"ventclearlyunw~
kvasionofpersonalpnvacy
PUBLICCc:Pt
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
U.S.Citizenship
and Imrmgranon
Services
File: SRC 0613152372 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 0 12m7
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l 5)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(aX15)(L)
IN 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.
~::f~f
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
"
SRC 0613152372
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a non immigrant visa. The matter
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed.
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of its executive
manager as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section IOl(a)(l5)(L) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U .S.C. § IIOI(a)(l5)(L). The petitioner is a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of Florida and is allegedly engaged in the business of real
estate, construction , and development. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay to open
a new office in the United States, and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that (l) the beneficiary will be
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; or (2) the petitioner had been
doing business during the year preceding the filing of the instant petition.
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 , counsel to the petitioner states in the Form 1-290B
as follows: "[The petitioner] requests a reconsideration of the reasons for the denial since the delays were
caused by Hurricane Wilma and now the company is fully operational."
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.
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § I03.3(a)(1)(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.
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summa:ily dismissed. While the petitioner gave an explanation for
its failure to become fully operational during its first year in operation, it nevertheless failed to identify an
erroneous legal conclusion or factual statement in the director's decision for the AAO to consider on appeal.
Consequently , the appeal must be 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. § 1361. Thepetitioner has not met this burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed .