dismissed L-1A Case: Television Production

:.".
identifyingdatadeletedto
.preve.ntclearlyunwarranted
InvaSIOnof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOpy
(J.S.Department. of;H~IIlelaJ;ld.Secu"ity
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
U.s.Citizenship .
and Immigration
Services
File: SRC 0508551175 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: .MAR 06 2001
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuarit to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § llOl(a)(l5)(L)
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF -REPRESENTED
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 clade to that office.
~-Robert P. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
W)\'w~llscis;gov
• • • l ~
, SRC 05 085 51175
Page 2 '"
. '.-.
DISCUSSION: The Director , Texas Service Center , denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter
is now befor~ theAd~inistrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed .
. . .
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa peti ~ion seeking to extend the employment of its vice president as
an L-lA nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(l5)(L) 'of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 110 I (a)(l5 )(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the iaws
of the State of Florida and is ,allegedly engaged in the business of television production. The beneficiary was
initially granted a one-year period 'of stay to open a new office in the United States, and the petitioner now
seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay.
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 . , In support of the appeal , the petitioner submitted a brief which
' r ~p e a ts the previously submitted job duties of the beneficiary .
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(l5)(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. vor 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'ta "the same, employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof
in a managerial , executive, or specialized knowledgecapacity . .
, 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)(1)(v) state, in p·~rtinentpar.t:
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 spec ifically an 'erroneous conclus ion of law or a statement of ,
fact in this proceeding , the appeal must be summar ily dismissed. While the petitioner submitted a brief , this
brief does not identify any error:eous conclu sions of law or statements of fact for the appeal.
. .
In visa petition proceedings , the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely ~ith the
petitioner. Section291 of the Act , 8 V.S.c. §1361. The petitioner has not met this burden . '
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismis sed.