dismissed L-1B Case: Import/Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Masachusetts Ave.. N W . Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JULM~B 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
S ELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTKUCTIONS: 
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, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 operates as an importer and exporter of industrial equipment, parts, accessories, 
lubricants, and oil. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as an L-IB 
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. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition, 
concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, or that 
the prospective position requires an individual with specialized knowledge. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, the petitioner states the following: 
[W]e appeal the decision based on the following reasons: 
1. The [foreign entity] guarantees that the work experience showed by [the beneficiary] in our 
organization demonstrates a knowledge level ahead of the elementary or basic, since she is in 
charge of support in a technological level to increase and automate our work process, thanks 
to the implementation of methodologies that require an advanced level of analysis and 
knowledge. 
2. The [petitioner] showed evidence of the business currently managed. Nevertheless, the 
incorporation of a professional with advanced education, like [the beneficiary], is needed to 
develop and expand our business field within the United States; implementing quality 
improvements with an adequate technological support in our main area of import and export, 
which is the biggest area where we need her great experience, acquired from Venezuela, to 
develop similar procedures in the United States. 
The petitioner provides no additional evidence to support the appeal. The petitioner does not discuss the 
director's analysis. For example, the director pointed out that the petitioner's documentation shows that it 
operates a convenience store rather than an import export business as claimed. The director further noted that 
the petitioner failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the beneficiary's duties. The petitioner does not 
address these assertions on appeal. The petitioner's comment on Form I-290B is limited to a broad 
conclusion regarding the beneficiary's prior experience, and a general statement regarding the petitioner's 
need for the beneficiary's services. The petitioner's statement represents a general summary of assertions 
already contained in the record. The petitioner fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law 
or statement of fact for the appeal. 
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. 
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 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 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. ij 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.