dismissed L-1B Case: Newspaper Publishing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
laentrfying data deleted to 
Q- -9 -ted 
imaon dp=aJ P* 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 082 53395 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER  date:^ ~0y. 0 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l5)(L) of the ' 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have be+ returned 
to the office that onginally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.: 
, 
1 Admlnistrat~ve Appeals Office 
WAC 04 082 53395 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. 
The matter 1s now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it is a newspaper publisher and distributor. It seeks to extend the bkneficiary's 
period of stay as nonirnrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to § 10 1 (a)( 15)(L) of the ~hrnigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 u.s.c.''~~ 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the based on the/conclusion 
that the petitioner failedto establish that the beneficiary possessed specialized knowlebge of the 
petitioner's practices and procedures as defined by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that he would submit a drief andlor 
additional evidence to address the director's denial within thirty days.. Although counsel sdbmitted an 
,explanatory statement on Form I-290B, he failed to address the director's conclusions. Id this brief 
statement, counsel stated that the petitioner required an additional thirty days to translate apdroximately 
seventy pages of documents received,from the parent company in Korea. Counsel's general shtement on 
Form I-290B did not address orspecifically identify any errors on the part of the director, an/l is simply 
insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached ba'bed on the 
evidence submitted by the petitioner. Going on record without supporting documentary evidknce is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of~offiki, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Cornrn. 1998) (citing Mhtter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N ~ec.! . . 190 (Reg. , 
Comm. 1972)). 
On the ~otice of Appeal received on April 2, 2004, counsel for the petitioner clearly indicbted that it 
would send a brief with the necessary evidence [to the AAO] within thirty days. ~ccording toi 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.3(a)(2)(iS, the petitioner "shall file the complete appeal including any supporting brief with the office 
where the unfavorable decision was made within 30 days a'fter service ofthe decision,'' whichlin the case 
at hand would be no later than Wednesday April 7, 2004. Although the petitioner requeste additional .. 
"i time to submit its arguments on appeal, there was no indication or evidence that the petitioner qubmitted,a 
I 
brief and/or evidence in support of the appeal with'the Service or with the AAO. 
On September 27,2005, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advlsed counsel that no evldeqce or bnef 
had ever been recelved In thls matter, and requested that counsel submlt a copy of the/ orzgmal(y 
submitted bnef and/or additional evldence, ~f m fact such ev~dence had been submltted, hth~n five 
buslness days. On October 3, 2005, the AAO recelved a fax from counsel's office. Included In the fax 
was a bnef dated October 3, 2005, accompanied by supporting documentat~on and a translation 
certlficatlon slgned by 
h 
whlch was also dated October 3, 2005.' ~ounsei glves no 
lnd~cation that thls brief ad been previously filed wlth the AAO. Furthermore, counsel submits no co~v . d 
of a dated cover letter, prev~ously dated bnef, or other evldence, such as a mading recelpt, tolprove that 
thls bnef was In fact filed wlth the AAO wlthln 30 days of the filing of the Form I-290B. It appears, 
therefore, that this bnef was prepared and submltted for the first time In response to the AAO'S facslm~le 
of September 27, 2005. The regulations do not allow an applicant or petitioner an open-ended or 
' An additional copy of this docuinentation was received on October 4,2005 via Express Mail. 
WAC 04 082 53395 
Page 3 
, indefinite period in which to supplement an appeal once it has been filed. As a result, counsel'ls brlef will 
not be considered. 
The petitioner, a newspaper publisher and diskbutor, sought to extend the employment of the b4eficiary in 
the United States as the manager of its advertisement planning and business department. The /petitioner's 
burden was to establish that the beneficiary possessed the requisite specialized knowledge, and t petitioner 
k was given ample opportunity to furnish evidence in support of its contentions. The petition as denied 
because the record of proceeding did not contain sufficient evidence to meet that burden. The dir 
provided a detailed and thorough evaluation of the beneficiary's position in accordance with 
of specialized knowledge contained.in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
On review, the record as presently constituted is not persuasive in demonstrating that the bendficiary has 
been employed in a specialized knowledge position or that the beneficiary is to perfom a jo requiring 
specialized knowledge in the proffered position. Although the petitioner asserts that the b 1 neficiary's 
position requires specialized knowledge, the petitioner has not articulated any basis to the clalm that the 
beneficiary is employed in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge. Other than submittin a general 
description of the beneficiary's job duties, the beneficiary has not identified any aspect of the b 1 neficiary's 
position which involves special knowledge of the petitioning organization's product, servic , research, 
equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. 'The petitioner has not submitted any 1 vidence of 
the knowledge and expertise required for the beneficiary's position that would differ tiate that 
employment from the position of a manager of advertising or business at other employers within the 
industry. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not suffici 1 nt for the 
purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici 22 I&N De . 158. 165 
(Comm. 1998). Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's dut es involve 
specialized,,kndwledge, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reit rating the 
regulations. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), am, 9 5 F.2d 41 
(2d. Cir. 1990). 1 
1 
The petitioner's burden was to establish that the beneficiary possessed the requisite specialized (mowledge, 
and the petitioner was gven ample opportunity to furnish supporting evidence in support of its dontentions. 
The petitlon was denied because the record of proceeding did not contain sufficient evidence th meet that 
burden. 
As stated above, absent a timely filed clear statement, brief andlor evidence to the contrary, th 
does not identify, specifically, an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. Hence, 
must be summarily dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
I 
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. 
WAC 04 082 53395 
Page 4 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains erptirely with 
the petitioner. Section 291 of the. Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. Inasmuch as counsel has failed !to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petiti+er has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.