dismissed L-1A Case: Retail Food

u.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Admin~strative Appeals 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
Ihtj8'ing data deleted 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PEvent clearly unw-ted Services 
inv~i~ ofpersonal privmy 
File: EAC 07 057 5 1604 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 APR 0 2' 2009 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
-f13p 
John F. Gnssom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 057 51604 
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 filed a nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of the beneficiary as an 
L-1 A nonirnrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101 (a)(lS)(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 did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily 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 appeal, counsel requests that the petitioner be given 
additional time to file a new or amended petition establishing that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. Counsel indicates the petitioner was unable to develop the United 
States export enterprise as originally described in the petition and is now planning to operate a "retail food 
outlet." 
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. $ 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 the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. While counsel gave an explanation for the 
petitioner's failure to develop its business during its first year in operation, it nevertheless failed to identify an 
erroneous legal conclusion or factual statement in the decision for the AAO to consider on appeal. 
Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed. 
As counsel properly notes, the petitioner is not precluded from filing a new petition on behalf of the 
beneficiary if it believes a change in circumstances now renders it eligible for the benefit sought under this 
visa classification. 
EAC 07 057 51604 
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. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden.' 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summai-ily dismissed. 
1 
It is further noted that, upon review, the record appears to contain inconsistencies pertaining to the 
petitioner's ownership and control, which undermine its claim to have a qualifylng relationship with the 
foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(i). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states in part that an 
individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be accompanied by "[elvidence that the petitioner and the 
organization which employed or will employ the alien are qualifylng organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section." Title 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(i)(l)(ii)(G) defines a "qualifying organization" as a firm, 
corporation, or other legal entity which "meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in paragraph (l)(l)(ii) of this section." A 
"subsidiary" is defined, in part, as a legal entity "of which a parent owns, directly or indirectly, more than half of 
the entity and controls the entity." 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(i)(l)(ii)(K). In this matter, the petitioner claims in the 
Form 1-1 29 to be 100% owned by the foreign employer. The petitioner also claims in the Form 1-1 29 that the 
foreign employer is owned by Atul Bora. However, in support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a stock 
certificate indicating that all 3,000 of its shares were issued to the beneficiary. The petitioner offers no 
explanation for this inconsistency in the record pertaining to its ownership and control. It is incumbent upon 
the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Accordingly, 
if the appeal were not being summarily dismissed, the petition would also be denied for this additional reason.