dismissed L-1A Case: Travel Agency

iaentifyiltldatadel... tt;
preventclCJ~'}y Wlwmanted
~of,. ...1privacy
PUBLIC COpy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: EAC 07 186 52726 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 1 4 2008
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L)
ON 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 made to that office.
,.RobertP. Wiemann, Chief
(6Administrative Appeals Office
'www.uscis.gov
EAC 07 186 52726
Page 3
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 petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of Florida that intends to
operate a travel agency. The petitioner states that it is a subsidiary 0
_Ilocated in Brazil. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the general director of its
~United States.
The director denied the petition on July 24, 2007, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the
United States company has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office, as required by 8
C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(V)(A).
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. On appeal, the petitioner states that it has completed the process
of securing premises for the new company. The petitioner provides a copy of its lease agreement, which was
signed on August 6, 2007, and photographs in support of the appeal.
To establish eligibility for the L-l nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United
States. In addition, 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. While the
AAO acknowledges receipt of a lease agreement on appeal, the agreement was signed subsequent to the
denial of the petition. 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 Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). The
evidence submitted on appeal is not probative of the petitioner's eligibility as of the date of filing and
therefore will not be given any weight in this proceeding.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(A) requires that if a beneficiary is coming to the United States to
open or to be employed in a new office in the United States, the petitioner shall submit evidence that
sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured. Here, the petitioner did not submit
such evidence with the initial petition. When subsequently requested to provide evidence that the petitioner
had complied with this requirement, the petitioner indicated that the signing of a lease would be dependent
upon the approval of the instant petition. Therefore, the director had a proper basis for the denial of the
petition.
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § l03.3(a)(1)(v) state, in pertinent part:
EAC 07 18652726
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 the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of
fact in this proceeding, the appeal will 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. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.