dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

L1.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC-03-245-5 1 1 16 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
I - 5 "- , L,j8 Jeg' \$ 
IN RE: 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. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative 4ppeals 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. 
"?/,j 
1 
Rbbert P. Wiemann, Director 
Ad!ministrative Appeals Office 
t 
SRC-03-245-5 11 16 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 gas station and a retail store that sells cellular phones accessories and 
provides dry cleaning services. It seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay in L-IA 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 concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel simply asserts that "[tlhe Center Director erred in denying the L-1 
Extension, as the beneficiary established that he was an executive manager in the subject business." Counsel 
fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. Counsel 
further states that a brief or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 90 days. The appeal was filed on 
April 23, 2004. As of this date, the AAO has received nothing further and the record will be considered 
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 beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or h~er 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 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. $ 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is suminarily dismissed.