dismissed L-1A

dismissed L-1A Case: Software

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 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

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. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

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.