dismissed L-1B Case: It Services

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of persod priv~cy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 08 047 50624 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 2 7 200[ 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a j(15 )(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(aj(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 08 047 50624 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 IT services, namely back offices and call center services. It 
seeks to employ the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge 
pursuant to tj 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
director denied the petition based on the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary possessed specialized knowledge or that he would be employed in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge. 
On the Notice of Appeal received on April 21, 2008, counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that he 
would send a brief with the necessary evidence to the AAO within thirty days. Specifically, counsel 
states: "The petitioner is in the process of acquiring additional documents to establish grounds for the 
appeal. As such, we respectfully request the Service Center to grant additional 30 days to submit an 
appeal." Counsel's general statement fails to specifically identify any errors on the part of the director. 
Although counsel requested additional time to submit an appeal, to date there is no indication that the 
petitioner or counsel ever submitted a brief and/or evidence in support of the appeal with the Service or 
with the AAO.' As stated above, absent a clear statement, brief andor 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. tj 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. tj 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. 5 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 
1 
On August 12, 2008, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief 
had been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief and/or additional 
evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. As of the date of this 
decision, the AAO has received no response from counsel or the petitioner.