dismissed L-1B Case: Food Processing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: 
 EAC 04 2 13 5005 1 
 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: SEp 0 8 2006 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 10 1 (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. 
- 
.+-' YJ- 
c Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 213 50051 
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 states that it is engaged in food processing. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as an 
intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to 4 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). 
 The director denied the petition based on the 
conclusion that the petitioner (1) failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed specialized knowledge 
and would be employed in a position in the United States that required specialized knowledge; and (2) 
failed to establish that the beneficiary's past employment abroad was in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B, that it would submit a brief and/or 
additional evidence to address the director's denial within thirty days. In a letter dated February 4, 2005, 
counsel for the petitioner requested an additional thirty days in which to submit a supporting statement, 
because documentation from the beneficiary's foreign employer had not yet been received. 
On the Notice of Appeal received on January 8, 2005, counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that it 
would send a brief with the necessary evidence [to the AAO] within thirty days. In his letter dated 
February 4, 2004, counsel again makes the same assertion. According to 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(2)(i), the 
petitioner "shall file the complete appeal including any supporting brief with the office where the 
unfavorable decision was made within 30 days after service of the decision," which in the case at hand 
would be no later than, January 10, 2005. The petitioner made two separate requests for additional time 
to submit an appeal, both of which were granted by the AAO. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(2)(vii). To date, 
however, there is no indication or evidence that the petitioner ever submitted a brief and/or evidence in 
support of the appeal with the Service or with the AAo.' 
Although counsel submitted a brief statement on the Form I-290B, he failed to adequately address the 
director's conclusions. In this brief statement, counsel states that the "alien has been employed by a 
foreign affiliate in a management capacity, as well as a position that involves specialized knowledge for 
the requisite period of time." Counsel's general objection on the Form I-290B, without specifically 
identifying any errors on the part of the director, is simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and 
logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Absent a clear statement, brief and/or evidence to the contrary, the petitioner does not identify, 
specifically, an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. Hence, the appeal must be summarily 
dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. 4 103,3(a)(l)(v). 
1 
On July 24, 2006, the AAO telephoned counsel's office and left a message regarding this matter. As of 
the date of this decision, the AAO has received no response from counsel or the petitioner. 
EAC 04 213 50051 
Page 3 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. 
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. 9 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.