dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant

U.S. Department of Hornelanti Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
' idm~fviing data dele(ed W 
t dearly unwarranfwl P- in~&~~ a€ aersonal D- 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration. 
FILE: WAC-04-169-52967 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: jut 2 0 m5 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L) 
b~ 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. 
obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Appeals Office 
WAC-04- 169-52967 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnmigrant 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 restaurant. It seeks to extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary 
temporarily in the United States as its operational manager as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee 
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
$ 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based on the conclusion that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
With the Form I-290B appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter in which it lists facts about the company and 
asserts that the beneficiary is important to its operation. The petitioner does not discuss the director's analysis 
or grounds for denial, or identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal. 
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. $ 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. 
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 summarily 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. 3 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.