dismissed L-1B Case: Computer Wholesale

idzctli) .,:, , -:. , :+ J .;I. :L: (:J to 
prevznt c teziy ur,u axanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: 
 EAC 07 086 51371 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 NOV0321108 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(] 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
rAC 07 086 51371 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. The 
petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider. Although the director granted the motion, he affirmed 
the denial, finding that the petitioner failed to overcome the grounds cited therein. The matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as its manager as an L-1B 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Florida corporation 
that claims to be engaged in the wholesale and resale of computers. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary for a period of two years. 
In a decision dated October 2, 2007, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that he would be employed in a position that requires 
specialized knowledge. 
On November 2, 2007, the petitioner filed a motion, disputing the director's basis for denial. 
In a decision dated April 2,2008, the director affirmed the prior decision denying the petition, concluding that 
the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would assume a position that requires specialized 
knowledge. 
On appeal, the beneficiary, on behalf of the petitioner, states that he is working with the petitioner's foreign 
affiliate to come up with evidence to overcome the ground for denial of the petition. The petitioner also 
indicated that a brief and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days in support of the 
appeal. On September 16, 2008, the AAO reviewed the record of proceeding and found that no additional 
evidence or information had been submitted since the appeal was filed on May 2, 2008. Accordingly, the 
AAO faxed the petitioner a notice allowing an additional five days in which to provide a brief and/or any 
information $the petitioner had previously submitted such information.' The MO clearly stated that this 
was not meant to allow the petitioner additional time in which to provide new information that had not been 
previously submitted. Rather, this was merely an attempt to allow the petitioner to provide information that 
may have been submitted but never matched with the record of proceeding. 
In response, the beneficiary provides an undated letter accompanied by an untranslated letter dated April 24, 
2008 from Bancolombia. The beneficiary asserts that the foreign bank letter establishes the amount of credit 
for which he is responsible and claims that he uses this credit in order to purchase computers. It is noted that 
the petitioner's failure to submit a certified translation of the document, the AAO cannot determine whether 
the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not 
probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
In addition, the beneficiary's statement does not address the director's ultimate finding that the proposed 
position in which the beneficiary would be employed in the United States does not require an individual with 
specialized knowledge. 
I 
 It is noted that the AAO's fax cites the date of filing of the appeal as May 2, 2006. Although this is not the correct year 
of filing, as noted in the body of the decision, thls error is harmless and will not have any bearing on the outcome in this 
proceeding. 
.EAC 07 086 51371 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concerned fails to identi@ specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
for the appeal. 
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. Inasmuch as the petitioner 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.