dismissed L-1A Case: Satellite Television

identiiylrig 2.- -vcv~ G.cl 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC-03 - 172-534 17 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 5 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (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 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. 
4--Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC-03-172-53417 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it is a satellite television and broadband provider. It seeks to extend the employment 
of the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its Director of Operations, pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 IOl(a)(15)(L). The director 
denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the foreign entity is doing business, 
such that it is a qualifying organization. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel simply asserts: "We believe the decision reached in this case is incorrect 
as a matter of law." Counsel further states that a brief or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 
days. The appeal was filed on March 1, 2004. As of May 24, 2005, approximately 14 months after the date 
of filing, the AAO had received no further correspondence from counsel or the petitioner. On May 24, 2004, 
the AAO sent notification to counsel by facsimile that no further materials had been received in connection 
with the appeal, and affording counsel five business days to respond before a decision is rendered. On May 
27, 2005, counsel submitted additional evidence. 
In counsel's letter of May 25, 2005, he indicates that he is submitting a brief with the additional evidence. No 
brief is included. Therefore, counsel's assertions on appeal are limited to the vague sentence on Form I-290B, 
quoted above. Counsel fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for 
the appeal. Counsel fails to mention any of the director's findings, or the ground for denial. 
It is further noted that the majority of the evidence submitted by counsel on appeal relates to activity that 
occurred after May 19, 2003, the date the petition was filed. Such evidence includes banks statements, 
invoices, a lease, and a Form 10-QSB Quarterly Report. However, the petitioner must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after 
the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Gorp., 17 
I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). As the majority of evidence submitted on appeal references business 
activity that occurred after the date of filing, it is not probative of the petitioner's eligibility as of the filing 
date. Accordingly, it is given no weight in this proceeding. 
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 MO 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: 
EAC-03-172-53417 
Page 3 
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. 9 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.