dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Department of Homelaad Sccrrity 
20 Massachusetts Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenshi 
P and Immigrat on 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. !j 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
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. 
Robert P. Wiernann, Director 
dministrative Appeals Office 
SRC-03-I 73-543 10 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director; California 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 employment of its President and General 
Manager as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section lOl(a)(IS)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 1 LOl(a)(lS)(L). The petitioner is a limited liability 
company organized in the State of Texas that operates as a retailer of sunglasses and related products. The 
petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of, located in Karachi, Pakistan. 
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 the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel asserts: 
The Center Director erred in failing to approve the L-1A Petition for [the] foIlowing reasons: 
1. [The beneficiary] will be employed at an executive level at [the petitioner] 
2. For Such other reasons as shall be set forth in the evidence submitted. 
Counsel submits a brief in which he discusses the beneficiary's position and asserts that the beneficiary will 
be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Counsel fails to address the director's grounds 
for denial, or specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding. 
The AAO notes that counsel's appellate tnief largely repeats information, oRen verbatim, previously provided 
in the June 4, 2003 letter from the petitioner submitted with the petition. Such recitation of facts already 
entered into the record does not constitute "identify[ing] specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a 
statement of fact." 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Counsel states that the petitioner now employs five individuals, 
and the petitioner provides its IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, and its Texas Form 
C-3, Employer's Quarterly Report, for the fourth quarter of 2003 as evidence of this fact. Yet, the petitioner 
must establish eligibiIity at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be 
approved at a future 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 fact that the petitioner hired new 
employees after the date of filing is not probative of the petitioner's eligibility as of the filing date. Further, 
counsel mentions that the beneficiary "will supervise employees who run day-today operations of the retail 
gas stations." However, prior to this appeal, the petitioner provided no indication that it operates or intends to 
operate gas stations. In fact, in response to the director's October 4, 2003 request for photographs of the 
petitioner's business, the petitioner provided photographs of sunglasses retail operattons, including a small, 
one-room shop and a shopping mall vending stall. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Crafi of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
SRC-03-173-543 10 
Page 3 
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. 5 103.3(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 counsel 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. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.