dismissed L-1A Case: Travel Services

U.S. Department of tion~eland Securitj 
20 Massachuwtts 4t e N W Rrn A1042 
Wa~hlngtori, DC 20520 
identifying data deleled to 
prevent clearly uawsrranted 
iovasieaofppslrmalp~ 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE. WAC 03 072 53557 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 8 
PETITION: Petition for a Non~mmigrant Worker Pursuant to Sect~on 10 1 (a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Natlonal~ty Act, 8 U.S.C. ji 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This IS the decis~on of the Adm~nistrative Appeals Office m your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that or~g~nally decided your case. Any further lnqulry must be made to that office 
Robert P. W~emann, Director 
! Admln~strative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 072 53557 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The'Dlrector. Callfomra Servlce Center, denied the petltlon for a non~mmi~ant vlra. The 
matter is now before the Admln~stratrve Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal wlll be si~mmartly 
d~sm~ssed 
'The petltloner filed th~s nonimmlwant petlt~on seeklng to extend its authorlzat~on to employ ~ts pres~dent and 
general manager as an L-1A nonlmmlgrant lntracompany transferee pursuant to sectlon lOl(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immlgrat~on and Nat~onaltty Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C $ 1101(a)(15)(L). The petltloner IS a C'altfornla 
corporation that is engaged in the prov~s~on of travel servlces The petitioner cla~ms that ~t is the subs~d~ary of 
located m Ahrnedabad, Indla. The benefic~ary was in~t~ally granted a one-year penod In L-lA 
class~ficat~on In order to open a new office m the Unlted States, and the petitloner now seeks to employ hlm 
for an addltronal two-year period. 
The d~rector denled the petltlon concluding that the petitloner d~d not establ~sh that the benefic~ar~'will be 
employed In the Unlted States m a prlmarlly managerla1 or executlve capacity. ~hk d~rector observed that the 
pet~t~oner's job description ~nd~cates that the benefic~ary w~ll be involved In the day-to-day duhes of operating 
a travel agency ~ncludlng those of a sales agent rather than dlrect~ng activlt~es through managers, execut~ves 
or profess~onals. Although the drrector treated the Instant petit~on as a "new office" petitlon pursuant to 8 
C.F.R 5 214.2(1)(3)(~), he observed that the beneficlary had been In the Un~ted States from May 2002 to 
November 2002 to establish the buslness. The dlrector concluded that the fact that the benefic~ary was unable 
to start the busrness or at least make appropriate arrangements to do so Indicates that the petlt~oner's proposed 
buslness plan is not feasible. 
On appeal, the petitloner does not spec~fy any erroneous conclbslons of law or statements of fact on the part 
of the drrector. Instead, the petlt~oner wbm~ts a December 2, 2003 letter from the pet~tioner's v~ce-pres~dent, 
In whlch he states: 
Regarding physical premises we have lease for 3 years and it is further renewable. 
Beneficiary has been employed as a President and General Manager. So it is all ready 
a[n] executive or managerial authority over the new operat~on. 
Beneficiary.. . is a[n] Owner and General Manager of the Business in back homc and also 
he is employed here as President and General Manager in executive'capacity having 
authority to make all major dec~sion for the company like establishes the goal and 
policies oC the organization, having power to hire and fire etnployee, decision for 
marketing and sales, controlling income and expenditure, in short he is only a decision 
making person fbr the business. Also beneficiary is a major stockholder for the business 
LJ.S.A. and his sole oder in the business at back home. Also he is only a person having 
15 years expenence as an executive capacity to run the business in U.S.A. as a sole 
executive capacity. This is very clear from our first original petition as well as renewal 
request. 
To establ~sh L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nat~onal~ty Act (the Act), 
8 U.S C 5 1101(a)(15)(L), the petlt~oner must demonstrate that the beneficlary, w~thln three years preced~ng 
the benefic~ary's applrcat~on for admlsslon Into the Unlted States, has been employed abroad in a qual~fylng 
manager~al or executlve capacrty, or In a capaclty involving spec~al~zed knowledge, for one cont~nuous year 
WAC 03 072 53557 
Page 3 
by a qualifying organization and seeks to enter the Unlted States temporanly In order to contlnue to render hls 
or her servlces to the same employer or a substdlary or affiliate thereof In a capaclty that 1s managerial, 
executive, or involves spec~allzed knowledge. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affinns the denial of the 
Although the director's decision to deny the petition will be affirmed, the AAO .notes that ihe director 
inappropriately treated this petition as a "new office" petition under'8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3)(~) rather than as an 
extension of a new office petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(14)(iij. The beneficiary's previous L-1A 
petition was approved for a one-year period from January 5, 2002 tb January 5, 2003 (WAC 01' 222 5 1.682). 
At the time of filing the petition on January 2, 2003, the petitioner clearly represented this petition as a 
rencwal, even while acknowledging that the beneficiary had been in the United States for only seven months 
out of the year and had not been able to commence doing business. This circumstance does not negatethe fact 
that the beneficiary was approved for a one-year period. The regulations clearly state that a new office 
- petition "may be approved for a period not to exceed one year," irrespective of the length of time the 
beneficiary Bctually spends in the United States. 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(7)(i)(A)(3). The fact that the beneficiary 
did not enter the United States until four months after he was approved for L-1A status and departed the 
United States before his petition expired does not render him eligible for additional time in order to. open a 
new office. In addition. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) records show that the petitioner 
previously obtained approval of a new office petition for this beneficiary valid from October 12, 2000 to 
October 1.2, 2001 (WAC 00 255 53635). Thus, the petitioner and benefcia~ have already been &.ranted two 
opportunities to begin doing business in the United States and have failed to progress beyond the market 
research stage. 
Although not addressed by the director, the petitioner has not established that it is eligible for an extension of 
the initial one-year "new office" validity period. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(14)(ii) provides strict 
evidentiary requirements that the petitioner must satisfy prior to the approval of this extension petition. Upon 
review, the petitioner has not satisfied several of the enumerated evidentiary requirements. The,petitioner has 
conceded that the United states entity has not been doing business for the previous.year as defined in 8 C.F.K. 
5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H). The petitioner has not submitted a detailed statement of the duties performed by the 
beneficiary for the previous year and the duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition so 
that the AAO can determine whether the beneficiary is employed in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. Rather, when instructed in a request for evidence to provide a detailed description of the 
beneficiary's managerial duties and purpose for coming to the United States. the petitioner simply indicated 
this information was not available. The petitioner has conceded that its new operation has not been staffed. 
Finally, the petitioner has conceded that it cannot provide evidence of the financial status of the United States 
company because it is not yet operational. For all of these reasons, the petition may not be approved and the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
An appl~cat~on or pet~tion that falls to comply wlth the technical requirements of the law may be denled by the 
AAO even ~f the Semce Center does not ~dent~fy all of the grounds for den~al In the ln~tlal declslon. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Ittc. v. United Stares, 229 F Supp 2d 1025. 1043 (E D Cal 2001), uffd. 345 F 3d 683 
(9th Clr. 2003); see also Dor v INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n 9 (2d Clr. 1989)(notmg that the AAO revlews 
appeals on a de novo basis) 
WAC 03 072 53557 ' 
Page 4 
Regulations at 8 C.F.K. 9 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, ,in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily d~smiss any appeal when the party 
concerned falls to tdentlfy specifically any erroneous conclus~on of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal 
The AAO acknowledges that the petitloner bnefly addresses the beneficiary's purported executlve dutles on 
appeal by paraphrasing elements of the statutory definitions of manager~al and executlve capacity. See section 
IOl(a)(44) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(44). However, the petltloner does not explain how the beneficiary 
has been performing executlve duties for a company that has not yet been established. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evldence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof In 
these proceedings. Matter of Soflici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (clt~ng Matter of Treasztre Crafi 01 
Calijbrnia, I4 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Inasmuch as the petitloner has faded to Identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact In th~s proceeding, the appeal will be summarily d~smlssed. 
In vlsa petlt~on proceedings. the burden of proving ellgibillty for the benefit sought remains entlrely wlth the 
petltloner. Sectlon 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. The pet~tioner has not met th~s burden. 
ORDER: The appeal IS summarily dismissed.