dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Km. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
c FILE: SRC 03 244 52670 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: AN 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
- -7- 
A. ci: 4s/ 
Robert P. Wiemann, D~rector 
Adm~n~strattve Appeals Office 
SRC 02 244 52670 
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 specialty restaurant engaged in catering and events planning. It seeks to 
extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its president pursuant to 
section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
director denied the petition based on the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that: (1) the 
beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; or that (2) the U.S entity had been doing 
business for the year prior to the filing of the petition as required by the regulations. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter in addition to Form I-290B. Although the petitioner submitted a 
detailed statement in the accompanying letter, it failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In 
this letter, the petitioner explains the current staffing of the petitioner and discusses the current duties of the 
beneficiary due to changes in staffing since the filing of the petition. The petitioner also claims that it has 
been doing business since May 24, 2003 and submits copies of its U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return for 
the year 2003 as well as copies of receipts and business licenses in support of this contention. However, 
despite the observations set forth in the letter, the petitioner fails to address the director's specific reasons for 
the denial. 
The director's first basis for the denial focused on the fact that at the time of the filing of the petition, the 
petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed and would continue to be employed in 
a capacity that was primarily managerial or executive. The director noted that although the petitioner had 
submitted evidence showing that it had achieved a more complex organizational hierarchy afier the petition's 
filing in response to the request for evidence, it had not demonstrated that such an organizational structure 
existed at the time the petition was filed. Consequently, the director concluded that this evidence, coupled 
with the description of the beneficiary's duties, was insufficient to establish that it will employ the beneficiary 
in a qualifying capacity. Similarly, the director also concluded that the evidence at the time of filing did not 
establish that the petitioner had been doing business for the previous year as required by the regulations. 
The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition 
may not be approved at a fkture date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). The petitioner, however, does 
not address this main reason for the denial, and furthermore fails to specifically identify any reason(s) upon 
which it believes the director erred in reaching the decision. The petitioner merely states the current situation 
of the petitioner's business and requests approval of the petition. 
The petitioner's general comments on appeal, without specifically identifying any errors on the part of the 
director, are 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 of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). Absent a clear statement, brief andor evidence to the contrary, the petitioner does not 
identify, specifically, an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. Hence, the appeal must be 
summarily dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
SRC 02 244 52670 
Page 3 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(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. 
The record shows a number of deficiencies, including the petitioner's failure to submit sufficient evidence 
establishing that it employed the staff required to support the beneficiary's managerial or executive position at 
the time the petition was filed. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry 
shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). In the instant case, the petitioner fails to 
acknowledge or address the director's reasons for the denial. Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 6 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the "new office" operation one year within the date of 
approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no provision in CIS 
regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year period. If the business does not have sufficient 
staffing after one year to relieve the beneficiary from primarily performing operational and administrative 
tasks, the petitioner is ineligble by regulation for an extension. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 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.