dismissed L-1B Case: Food Service

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC-04-055-5 1173 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnrnigant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
~obert P. Wiemann, Dirdtor 
SRC-04-055-5 1173 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnmigrant 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 a franchising company, specializing in stores that sell gelato. It .seeks to employ 
the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as a Store Manager and Trainer, 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 director 
denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
capacity that involves specialized knowledge. 
On Form I-290B, the petitioner states that it "feel[s] that the unfavorable decision has been made solely on 
[the] lack of documents, affidavits and materials that would support [its] request." The petitioner submits a 
brief that further discusses its operations and the beneficiary's alleged specialized knowledge. The petitioner 
provides letters to confirm the beneficiary's prior employment experience, and to serve as evidence of training 
he completed. The petitioner does not address the director's denial or assert that the director's decision was 
based on any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. 
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. 
The director issued a request for evidence on December 22, 2003, in part instructing the petitioner to "provide 
primary documentation for all claims of employment and training which qualify the beneficiary as possessing 
the alleged specialized knowledge." While the petitioner submitted a response dated December 23, 2003, the 
petitioner failed to provide any direct evidence of the beneficiary's work experience or training. Yet, the 
petitioner now submits such evidence on appeal. 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her 
discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that 
clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 
8 C.F.R. $3 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(14). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the beneficiary's training and experience letters to be 
considered, it should have submitted them in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the 
circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. 
SRC-04-055-51173 
Page 3 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shaM 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. 
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.