dismissed L-1B Case: Food Service

U.S. Deparlment of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 04 095 53077 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 3 1 2005 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 101(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. 
-&/ 4-: + 
~Sert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 095 53077 
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 operating as a fast food restaurant. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
temporarily in the United States as its food service manager, pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary would 
be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel simply asserts: 
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 more 
detailed exposition of the specialized nature of the job duties of the position and expert 
i 
testimony from India. Since some of the information is coming from abroad we require the 
additional time. 
The appeal was filed on June 28, 2004. As of this date, the AAO has received nothing further and the record 
will be considered complete. 
To establish eligibility under section lOl(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. Moreover, 
the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify spec$cally 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.