dismissed L-1B Case: Computer Consulting

identifyingdatadelet-eEito
preve.ntclear-. ...:~~~.varranreti
mV8S10nofpersonalprivacy
PlJBUCCOpy
U.S.Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: LIN 05 272 52083 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 022007
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L)
IN 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 .
. ---~_.~
R~~m~nn, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
LIN 05 272 52083
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 visa petitron seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-IB
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee having specialized knowledge 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 under the laws of the State of Michigan and is allegedly a computer consulting business.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish (1) that the beneficiary will be
employed in the United States in a position involving specialized knowledge or that he has specialized
knowledge; or (2) that the beneficiary had been employed abroad for one year prior to the filing of the instant
petition in a position involving specialized knowledge.
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 submitted a letter dated December 19,
2005 along with additional evidence.
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. § 103.3(a)(1)(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 the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. Although the petitioner states in the letter
dated December 19, 2005 that it "seeks to clarify errors," it is clear that the errors the petitioner seeks to
clarify are its own errors made in failing to establish eligibility for the benefit sought and not errors made by
the director. While the petitioner attempts to restate its case on appeal and to provide additional
documentation for consideration, additional evidence cannot be submitted on appeal where, as here, a
petitioner was put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and was given an opportunity to respond to that
deficiency. The AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter ofSoriano, 19
I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had
wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to the
LIN 05 272 52083
Page 3
director's request for evidence, which specifically addressed the beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge
and his dates of employment abroad. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider
the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed.
Moreover, to the extent the petitioner is seeking to amend its petition by supplementing or changing its
description of the beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge, this is improper in the context of an appeal
before the AAO. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(7)(i)(C) state:
The petitioner shall file an amended petition, with fee, at the service center where the original
petition was filed to reflect changes in approved relationships, additional qualifying
organizations under a blanket petition, change in capacity of employment (i.e. from a
specialized knowledge position to a managerial position), or any information which would
affect the beneficiary's eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act.
Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner would need to file a new petition with the Service Center in order to
amend its petition to reflect substantive changes in the beneficiary's proposed duties.
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. The petitioner has not met this burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.