dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

i4eDcifyiugdatadeldlt .­
prevc:ntclearly unw~
invasionor,etsonalp,c.9
PU61"l(;copy
u.s.Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave, N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: LIN 04 165 51722 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 20 2007
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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.
CJ t0t-(~/~/-ROber!P. Wie~hief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
LIN 04 165 51722
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center, and is
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed.
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager as an L-IA nonimmigrant intracompany
transferee pursuant to section 10I(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, an Alaska limited liabili company engaged in retail sales of jewelry and
crafts, claims to be the affiliate of , located in Humansdorp, South Africa. The
director determined that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary had been employed
abroad in a capacity that was primarily managerial or executive in nature, as required under 8 C.F.R.§
214.2(l)(3)(ii).
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that he would submit a brief and/or additional
evidence to address the director's denial within thirty days. Although counsel submitted a brief statement on
the Form I-290B, he failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In this brief statement, counsel
states "[t]he petitioner submits that the Service erred in [its] interpretation of the law respecting the meaning
of "Managerial Capacity" under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)." The director, however, provided a detailed
analysis and specifically cited the deficiencies in the evidence in the course of the denial. Counsel's general
objection on the Form I-290B, without specifically identifying any errors on the part of the director, is 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 ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)).
On the Notice of Appeal received on July 21, 2004, counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that he would
send a brief with the necessary evidence to the AAO within thirty days. To date, however, there is no
indication or evidence that the petitioner ever submitted a brief and/or evidence in support of the appeal.'
Counsel has not addressed the reasons stated for the denial and has not provided any additional evidence.
Although counsel states that the denial was erroneous, he fails to specifically address the conclusions set forth in
the director's decision, nor does he specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or fact made by the
director in the decision rendered on June 21, 2004. Absent a clear statement, brief and/or 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. § 103.3(a)(1)(v).
As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The filing by an attorney
of an appeal that is summarily dismissed under this section may constitute frivolous behavior as defined in
8 C.F.R. §292.3(a)(15).
) On May 9, 2007, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief had been
received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief and/or additional evidence, if in
fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. As of the date of this decision, the AAO
has received no response from counselor the petitioner.
LIN 04 165 51722
Page 3
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.