dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, Rm. A3042,425 I Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 02 033 54495 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 6 all5 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101 (a)(lS)(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann,  hector 
\ Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 02 033 54495 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was initially granted by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
According to the documentary evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was incorporated in 2000 and 
claims to be a retail outlet business. The petitioner claims that it is a subsidiary o 
cated in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The petitioner seeks to extend its 
in the United States as a director. The director determined that there had not been sufficient 
evidence submitted to establish that the beneficiary had been or would be employed primarily in a managerial 
or executive capacity. The director noted that the petitioner produced insufficient evidence to show that the 
U.S. entity employed anyone other than the beneficiary. The director also noted that the organization was not 
a sufficient size to support a managerial or executive position. 
On appeal, the petitioner indicated that he would not be submitting a separate brief or evidence. The 
petitioner states that the director erred in his findings that there were no other employees, besides the 
beneficiary, employed by the U.S. entity. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter written by an accountant, 
confirming the employment oi ~titv since January 1, 2002. The petitioner also 
submits copies of its cancelled checks made out t 4 All the cancelled checks were dated 
subsequent to the filing of the petition in the instant matter. It is noted that the petition was filed on October 
Furthermore, the petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to 
provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner failed to submit the requested 
evidence and now submits it on appeal. However, the AAO will not consider this evidence for any purpose. 
Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). The appeal will be adjudicated based on the record of 
proceeding before the director. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(v) states in part: 
Summary dismissal. 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. 
As the petitioner has failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought rests solely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.