dismissed L-1B Case: Books And Art Retail

U.S. Depagment of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC 05 049 50738 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 1 2m 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF b~ 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. 
//- 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 049 50738 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a 'nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 0kfice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as its managing director 
as an L-1B nonimmigrant intracompany tradsferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 
10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner is 
a corporation organized under the laws of the Stat 
 egedly a retailer of books and art. 
The petitioner claims a qualifying relationship with 
 Nepal. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that there is a qualifying 
relationship between the petitioner and the foreign entity. 
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 to the petitioner stated the following in the 
Form I-290B: 
U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services' decision was based on speculation rather than 
requesting clarification or documentation. Two Requests for Evidences [sic] were 
thoroughly complied with. 
Counsel further indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of 
this date, the AAO has received nothing further and the record will be considered complete.' 
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. 
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. 
'On October 23, 2006, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief had 
ever been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief and/or additional 
evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. As of the date of this 
decision, the AAO has received no response from counsel or the petitioner. 
L 
WAC 05 049 50738 
Page 3 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identlfy specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarilk 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.