dismissed L-1A Case: Rug Import/Sales

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave, N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
*my L A* lc 
= 
.,, "3 . ,, . -y 
ja;y ,j rz ,,.At 
File: EAC 03 035 52694 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CE 
lN RE: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 035 52694 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The U.S. petitioner, a corporation organized in the State of New Jersey, is engaged in the import and sale of 
rugs. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. The director denied the petition c:oncluding 
that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that it would submit a brief and/or additional 
evidence to address the director's denial within 30 days. Although counsel submitted a brief statement on the 
Form I-290B, it failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In this brief statement, counsel states: 
[CIS] disregarded the evidence submitted by beneficiary and petitioner with regard to 
beneficiary's executive capacity. 
[CIS] further totally disregarded the evidence submitted by the petitioner regarding the job 
duties of the employees currently working for the petitioner. 
We respectfully submit that [CIS] abused its discretion to consider the evidence submitted in 
support of the petition. Therefore, the denial was not justifiable and should be reversed. 
Counsel's general objections on the Form I-290B, without specifically identifying any errors on the part of the 
director, are 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 
Treasure Craft of Calgornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
On the Notice of Appeal received on March 3 1, 2003, counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that it would 
send a brief with the necessary evidence [to the AAO] within thirty days. According to 3 C.F.R. fj 
103.3(a)(2)(i), the petitioner "shall file the complete appeal including any supporting brief with the office 
where the unfavorable decision was made within 30 days after service of the decision," which in the case at 
hand would be no later than Friday, April 2, 2003. While the petitioner may request that it be granted 
additional time to submit an appeal, no such request was made in this case. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)(2)(vii). 
Even if additional time to submit a brief in support of the appeal had been requested and approved, to date 
there is no indication or evidence that the petitioner ever submitted a brief andfor evidence in support of the 
appeal with the Service or with the AAO.' As stated above, absent a clear statement, brief andlor evidence to 
1 In response to an inquiry by the AAO which sought to ascertain whether a brief had been previously 
submitted in this matter, counsel presents a faxed statement dated May 9, 2005. Counsel asserts that this 
recent statement is the brief in support of the appeal. Counsel, however, ignores the fact that the regulations 
do not allow a petitioner an open-ended or indefinite period in which to supplement an appeal once it has 
been filed. Since counsel did not submit the brief and/or additional evidence within the period indicated on 
the Form I-290B, this newly submitted evidence will not be considered. 
EAC 03 035 52694 
Page 3 
the contrary, the petitioner does not identify, specifically, and erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact. Hence, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. 
The filing by an attorney of an appeal that is summarily dismissed under ths section may constitute fi-ivolous 
behavior as defined in 8 C.F.R. §292.3(a)(15). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility 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.