dismissed L-1B Case: Manufacturing

l&ntityiOg data &leW to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
inv- d personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securiv 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC-04-050-53061 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 JUL 1 1 mN 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Adrmnistrative 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. 
LFL, 
Robert . Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC-04-050-53061 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 engaged in the business of manufacturing video equipment and polyester/nylon 
film. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its production manager, 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 based on the following independent conclusions: 1) the petitioner did not establish 
that the position for which the beneficiary was being transferred required specialized knowledge; and (2) the 
petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary possessed specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner filed an appeal on April 1 1,2004. On the Form I-290B, counsel simply asserts: "[tlhe service's 
decision . . . was in error as the company provided substantial evidence that the alien was among the 
company's most knowledgeable employees. . . ." Counsel further states that a brief or evidence would be 
submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of this date, the AAO has received nothing further and the record 
will be considered complete.' 
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. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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 specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. In addition, the AAO would note for the record 
that several assertions of the petitioner indicate that it is not eligible to receive this classification. 
Specifically, the petitioner has made confusing statements with regard to whether the petitioner or a temp 
agency would employ the beneficiary. The petitioner also failed to specifically respond to a number of items 
requested by the director in a request for evidence issued on December 23, 2004. Failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 3 
103.2(b)(14). 
I 
 On December 14, 2005, the AAO sent a fax to counsel for petitioner. The fax advised counsel that no 
evidence or brief had ever been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief 
andlor 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. 
EAC-04-050-5306 1 
Page 3 
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. 8 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.