dismissed
L-1A
dismissed L-1A Case: Software
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the original denial. The petitioner's appeal vaguely mentioned an injustice due to a service delay on a related I-140 petition but did not submit a required brief or argument to support their claim.
Criteria Discussed
Maximum Period Of Stay Failure To State Basis For Appeal
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
i&dfUing data deleted u, went clearly unw 4 hvaion of P*- PUBLIC COPY U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 Washington, DC 20529 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration File: EAC 07 227 52868 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 3 2008 Petition: Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 1 0 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (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. Robert P. Wiemann, Chief Administrative Appeals Office EAC 07 227 52868 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 this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of the beneficiary as an L- 1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 1 0 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is allegedly in the software business. The director denied the petition concluding that the beneficiary had reached the maximum period of validity permitted for the L-1 visa classification. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on February 29,2008. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner states in the Form I- 290B as follows: We feel that the petition was improperly denied on the basis that the related 1-140 Petition should have been approved prior to the filing of the instant petition. We feel that an injustice has taken place due to the Service Delay in adjudication of the related 1-140 petition. A brief/statement of argument will follow within the prescribed period. It is noted that, as of the date of this decision, neither a brief nor additional evidence has been received and the record will be considered complete. To establish eligibility under section 10 1 (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. 8 103.3(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. EAC 07 227 52868 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. $ 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden.' ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. 1 It is noted that, according to Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) records, a Form 1-140 was filed by the instant petitioner for the same beneficiary on April 16, 2004 (SRC 04 137 5 11 90). It is further noted that CIS denied this petition on February 13, 2008 and that the denial decision was "returned as undeliverable" to CIS on February 27,2008.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.