dismissed L-1B Case: Nutritional Products

identifyinp. cl~.ta deleted to 
prevent clean)' ,mwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: JUL 2 1 20\\ OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiaries: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
'67 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(lS)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(lS)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.useis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the' Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be swnmarily dismissed, 
although the matter is moot due to the passage of time. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of 
plant manager as an L-IB nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge 
pursuant to section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 
1 101 (a)(l5)(L). The petitioner states that it is engaged in services, distribution and wholesale of 
nutritional products. The petitioner claims to be an affiliate of Faraqro S.A. DE C.V., located in 
Mexico. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary for a period of one year. 
On May 15, 2009, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish 
that the position offered to the beneficiary requires an employee with specialized knowledge. 
On June 16,2009, counsel for the petitioner submitted the Form 1-2908 to appeal the denial of 
the underlying petition. The petitioner marked the box at part two of the Form 1-2908 to indicate 
that a brief and/or evidence would be sent within 30 days. The appeal brief was never received 
by the AAO, thus, the AAO deems the record complete and ready for adjudication. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On the Form 1-2908, the counsel for the petitioner states that "a brief in support will be filed 
within 30 days." 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(l5)(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. 
As no erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact has been specifically identified and as no 
additional evidence is presented on appeal to overcome the decision of the director, the appeal 
will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). It is also noted that 
the petitioner requested the beneficiary's services from January 23, 2009 until January 23, 2010. 
Therefore, the period of requested employment has passed. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § l361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. The petition is denied.