dismissed L-1B Case: Pharmaceutical Research

,.'
identifyingdatadeletedtdpreventclearly unw~
invasionof personalpnWCJ
PUBLIC COpy
u.s. oep :irt~~iitlOf.#o!rtel.!1,!d~ecurity
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington , DC 20529
u.s.Cltlzenship
and Immigranon
Services
File: SRC 05 207 51807 . Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date:
\)1
MAR 0e2007
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Non immigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigrat ion
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(l5 )(L)
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENT ED
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Administrati ve Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to
the office that originall y decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
· ~i e f.
Administrative Appeals Offic e
www,uscis.gov
SRC 05 207 51807
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director , Texas Service Center , denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will summarily dismis s the
appeal.
. The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as a junior research
scientist as an L-1B nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section
101(a)(I5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1IOl(a)(I5)(L). The petitioner is
a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and allegedly operates a pharmaceutical
research laboratory. The petitioner claims a qualifying relationship with Dr. , of
India.
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish (1) that the position offered
requires an emplo!ee with specialized knowledge or that the beneficiary has such knowledge; or (2) that the
petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the overseas employer.
The petitioner subsequently filed an 'appeal. The d irector declined to tr eat the appeal as a motion and
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter and additional
evidence. However , the petitioner does not identify any erroneous conclus ion of law or statement of fact
made by the director.
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(l5)(L ) of the Act , .the petitioner must meet certain criteria .
Specifically , within three years preceding the benefic iary's application for adm ission 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 . § l03.3(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 erroneou s conclusion of law or statement of
fact for the appeal.
Inasmuch as the petition er has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of
fact in this proceeding , the appeal must be summarily dismissed. While th e petitioner attempts to "offer
clarification" regarding the beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge and to provide additional
documentation regarding its 'purported qualifying relationship with the o verseas employer, additional
evidence cannot be submitted on appeal where, as here, a petitioner was on not ice of a deficiency in the
evidence and was given a n opportunity to respond to that deficiency . The AAO will not accept evidence
offered for the first time on appeal. See Matt er of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matt er of
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be
,..,
SRC 05 207 51807
Page 3
considered, it should' have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for evidence, which
specifically addressed both the beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge and the ownership and control
of the petitioner and the overseas entity. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not
consider the sufficiency 'ofthe evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed.
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 V.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.