dismissed L-1B Case: Machine Sales

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: WAC 08 095 50302 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: OCT 0 2 2DDB 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1101(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 Wher inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
L 
WAC 08 095 50302 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimrnigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of machine 
sales representative as an L-1B 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. 8 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
petitioner is a corporation established in the State of Delaware for the purpose of selling and servicing 
bookbinding machines. The director denied the petition based on three independent grounds of ineligibility. 
First, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge; second, the director found that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a specialized knowledge capacity; and third, the director found that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary would be employed by the U.S. entity in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
The petitioner has filed an appeal. Counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, asserts that the director's decision was 
erroneous. Counsel states that the beneficiary's proposed position requires an individual with specialized 
knowledge and claims that the beneficiary possesses such a level of knowledge. On September 3, 2008, the 
AAO reviewed the record of proceeding and found that no additional evidence or information had been 
submitted since the appeal was filed on April 25, 2008. Accordingly, the AAO faxed the petitioner a notice 
allowing an additional five days in which to provide a brief and/or any information if the petitioner had 
previously submitted such information. The MO clearly stated that this was not meant to allow the 
petitioner additional time in which to provide new information that had not been previously submitted. 
Rather, this was merely an attempt to allow the petitioner to provide information that may have been 
submitted and gotten detached from the record of proceeding. Counsel has since responded to the facsimile, 
notifying the MO that no additional information had been or would be submitted. Accordingly, the record 
will be considered complete as currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, 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 eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. 
 Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner 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.