dismissed L-1B Case: Culinary Arts

identifyingdamdeleted..
preventclearlyun~
invasionof.... pdt"
U.S.Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
PUBLICcopy
FILE: EAC 04 095 50113 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUl 06 2007
INRE: 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. § 110l(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.
~~
RobeffP o. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
EAC 04 095 50113
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-l B 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. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a New York limited liability company
which claims to operate a restaurant. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of
located in Chennai, India. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a chutney and condiment
specialist chef in its restaurant for a three-year period.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary has
specialized knowledge or that he has been, or would be, employed in position requiring specialized
knowledge.
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. On the Form I-290B appeal submitted on June 28, 2004, counsel
for the petitioner states:
An appeal may be filed either with new evidence or if there is a misapplication of the law and
the regulations. In the instant case, the Service simply does not understand the specialized
nature of the position because of lack of familiarity. We will submit a brief with a more
detailed exposition of the specialized nature of the job duties of the position and expert
testimony from India. Since some of the information is coming from abroad we require the
additional time.
Counsel indicated that a brief would be submitted to the AAO within 45 days. As of this date, the petitioner
has not submitted a supplemental brief or evidence. Therefore, 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
finn, 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. Counsel's
general statement that the director "does not understand the specialized nature of the position because of lack
of familiarity" fails to adequately address the director's stated grounds for denial of the petition. Counsel's
general objections to the denial of the petition, without specifically identifying any errors on the part of the
director, are simply insufficient to overcome the well founded and logical conclusions the director reached
based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner.
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) state, in pertinent part:
EAC 04 095 50113
Page 3
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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not met this burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.