dismissed L-1A Case: Wholesale Distribution

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. A3042, 
Washmgton, DC 20529 
FILE: WAC 03 210 50214 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 1 2005 
IN RE: 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. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. 
~obgrt P. Wiemann, ~irehor 
Administrative Appeals Office 
\1 
WAC 03 210 50214 
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 appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonirnrnigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
petitioner is engaged in import and wholesale distribution of bags. The petitioner claims that it is the 
subsidiary of the beneficiary's current employer, located in Busan, Korea. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its materials department manager for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish 
that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, the 
director noted that the petitioner did not establish that it had a materials department or that it employed 
professional employees who would be supervised by the beneficiary in his role as materials department 
manager. 
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, counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the 
director's findings or suggest that the decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. In fact, 
counsel acknowledges that at the time of filing the original petition, the department to be managed by the 
beneficiary was in its planning stages and that the employees to be supervised by the beneficiary had not been 
determined, thereby essentially agreeing with the director's finding that the petitioner did not establish that it 
in fact had a materials department or that the beneficiary would supervise a staff of professionals. Counsel 
states that presently, the department would have four employees and as such, the beneficiary would be 
employed in a primarily managerial position that involves supervising and directing a subordinate staff. The 
petitioner submits an updated organizational chart naming four employees in the materials department and 
requests that the petition be approved. However, 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). 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
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)(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. 
WAC 03 210 50214 
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. 8 1361. Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an 
erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not sustained that 
burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.