dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
~dentifVing data Qte(sd lo 
prevent fbvly ~~rrarraalod 
'nvasia al- privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 04 047 51043 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 7 2005 
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: 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
i 
EAC 04 047 5 1043 
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 states that it operates a retail store. It seeks to extend its authorization to employ the 
beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its general manager, pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition 
concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
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 the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, counsel for the petitioner 
asserts: 
Examining officer wrongly denied renewal of L-1 A status'despite clear proof that beneficiary 
was head of a U.S. company with approximately $1 million annual gross revenues and six 
employees subordinate to the beneficiary. Decision is wrong on facts and law and reflects a 
wrongful prejudice against L-1 A executives in small businesses. 
Counsel indicated on Form I-290B that he would submit a brief or evidence to the AAO within 30 days. As 
no additional evidence has been incorporated into the record, the. AAO contacted counsel by facsimile on 
September 30,2005 to request that counsel acknowledge whether the brief andlor evidence were subsequently 
submitted, and, if applicable, to afford counsel an opportunity to re-submit the documents. Counsel replied 
on October 3, 2005, indicating that he did not file a brief or evidence in support of this appeal. Accordingly, 
the record is now complete. 
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 benkficiary 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. Counsel's 
general objections to the denial of the petition, 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. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter OfLaureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Contrary to counsel's assertions, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) is not required to deem the 
beneficiary a manager or executive for immigration purposes simply because he is the "head of a U.S. 
company with approximately $1 million annual gross revenues" and has six subordinates. Although counsel 
EAC 04 047 5 1043 
Page 3 
asserts that the director placed undue emphasis on the size of the petitioning organization, upon review, the 
director's decision to the deny the petition was based primarily on the petitioner's failure to provide a detailed 
description of the beneficiary's job duties as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Further, the record shows 
that the director clearly considered the reasonable needs of the organization when reviewing the petitioner's 
described staffing structure and determining whether the beneficiary's employment is in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(a)(44)(C). Counsel's brief 
statement on the Form I-290B fails to acknowledge, much less resolve the deficiencies discussed in the 
denial. 
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. 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.