dismissed L-1A Case: Used Clothing Export

identifyiw at*'::ea -60 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
wn of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC-04-195-5 1088 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 5 7005 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(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. 
P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative ~~~eals Office 
WAC-04-1 95-5 1088 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will summarily dismiss 
the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ its President as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of California that operates as 
an exporter of used clothing. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary ashipping) Co., 
Ltd., located in Hiroshima, Japan. The beneficiary was initially granted a 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. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel for the petitioner states the following: 
The beneficiarv . . . had onlv 4 months to file for extension of [his1 L1 . . . visa after obtaining 
L 2 - 
[an] L1 . , . visa from [the] American ~onsul~a~an, because INS approved 
the petition only for 9 months until 713012004. It is not fair for INS to deny the petition for 
extension on the ground [that] the beneficiary is not working in [a] managerial capacity 
within such a shortperiod [sic]. The petitioner should be allowed more time to start the 
business. 
The petitioner submits a statement from the beneficiary as well as documentation of its business activity. 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner address the director's grounds for denial, or identify any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(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. 
Counsel suggests that the present petition should be adjudicated under the regulations governing new offices, 
provided in 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~), as the beneficiary did not receive a full year in L-1A status. Counsel 
takes issue with the director's application of the regulatory requirements for new office extensions as provided 
in 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(1)(14)(ii). The initial new office petition (WAC-03-242-50221) was approved for a period 
from October 21, 2003 to July 30, 2004, 283 days. If a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a 
new office, the petition may be approved for a period "not to exceed one year." 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(7)(i)(3). 
There is no indication in the current record of whether the petitioner originally requested nine months or a full 
year. Regardless, any request for an extension of a petition that was originally approved as a new office must be 
evaluated under the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
WAC-04-195-5 1088 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year within the 
date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no provision in CIS 
regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year period. If the business is not sufficiently operational 
after one year, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extension. Based on the foregoing, counsel's 
argument is not persuasive and the director correctly applied the standard for new office extensions. See 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proceeding, the appeal must 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. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.