dismissed L-1B Case: Publishing

antifying data deleted to 
p--y-ted 
im&n of pononal ~rfvsrJ 
FILE: WAC 04 082 53395 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimrnigrant 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: 1 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have be 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 082 53395 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimm 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The app 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it is a newspaper publisher and distributor. It seeks to extend the b neficiary's 
period of stay as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to 9 101 (a)(15)(L) of the I migration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based on the conclusion 
that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed specialized knowle ge of the 
petitioner's practices and procedures as defined by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 1 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that he would submit a 
additional evidence to address the director's denial within thirty days. Although counsel 
explanatory statement on Form I-290B, he failed to address the director's conclusions. 
statement, counsel stated that the petitioner required an additional thirty days to translate 
seventy pages of documents received from the parent company in Korea. Counsel's 
Form I-290B did not address or specifically identify any errors on the part of the 
insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the director 
evidence submitted by the petitioner. Going on record without supporting 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
Dec. 158, 165 (Cornrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
Comm. 1972)). 
On the Notice of Appeal received on April 2, 2004, counsel for the petitioner clearly indic ted that it 
would send a brief with the necessary evidence [to the AAO] within thirty days. According to 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.3(a)(2)(i), the petitioner "shall file the complete appeal including any supporting brief wit the office 
where the unfavorable decision was made within 30 days after service of the decision," which in the case 
at hand would be no later than Wednesday April 7, 2004. Although the petitioner requeste additional 
time to submit its arguments on appeal, there was no indication or evidence that the petitioner ubmitted a 
brief andlor evidence in support of the appeal with the Service or with the AAO. 
I 
I An additional copy of this documentation was received on October 4,2005 via Express Mail. 1 
On September 27,2005, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evider 
had ever been received in this matter, and requested that counsel submit a copy of the 
submitted brief and/or additional evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, 
business days. On October 3, 2005, the AAO received a fax from counsel's office. Included 
was a brief dated October 3, 2005, accompanied by supporting documentation and a 
certification signed by John H. Shim, which was also dated October 3, 2005.' Counse' 
indication that this brief had been previously filed with the AAO. Furthermore, counsel submits 
of a dated cover letter, previously dated brief, or other evidence, such as a mailing receipt, to 
this brief was in fact filed with the AAO within 30 days of the filing of the Form I-290B. 
therefore, that this brief was prepared and submitted for the first time in response to the AAO's 
of September 27, 2005. The regulations do not allow an applicant or petitioner an 
ce or brief 
originally 
within five 
in the fax 
translation 
gives no 
no copy 
prove that 
It appears, 
facsimile 
opeq-ended or 
WAC 04 082 53395 
Page 3 
indefinite period in which to supplement an appeal once it has been filed. As a result, counsel' 
not be considered. 
The petitioner, a newspaper publisher and distributor, sought to extend the employment of the be 
the United States as the manager of its advertisement planning and business department. The 
burden was to establish that the beneficiary possessed the requisite specialized knowledge, and tl 
was gven ample opportunity to furnish evidence in support of its contentions. The petition 
because the record of proceeding did not contain sufficient evidence to meet that burden. The dirl 
provided a detailed and thorough evaluation of the beneficiary's position in accordance with th 
of specialized knowledge contained in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
On review, the record as presently constituted is not persuasive in demonstrating that the benl 
been employed in a specialized knowledge position or that the beneficiary is to perform a jc 
specialized knowledge in the proffered position. Although the petitioner asserts that the b 
position requires specialized knowledge, the petitioner has not articulated any basis to the cl: 
beneficiary is employed in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge. Other than submittin 
description of the beneficiary's job duties, the beneficiary has not identified any aspect of the b 
position which involves special knowledge of the petitioning organization's product, servic 
equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. The petitioner has not submitted any 
the knowledge and expertise required for the beneficiary's position that would differc 
employment from the position of a manager of advertising or business at other employers 
industry. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not suffic. 
purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofflci, 22 I&N De 
(Comm. 1998). Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's dui 
specialized knowledge, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of rei 
regulations. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff, 5 
(2d. Cir. 1990). 
The petitioner's burden was to establish that the beneficiary possessed the requisite specialized 
and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to furnish supporting evidence in support of its 
The petition was denied because the record of proceeding did not contain sufficient evidence 1 
burden. 
As stated above, absent a timely filed clear statement, brief and/or 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. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 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. 
, brief will 
eficiary in 
2etitioner's 
: petitioner 
(as denied 
:tor denial 
definition 
ticiary has 
I requiring 
neficiary's 
m that the 
: a general 
neficiary's 
, research, 
vidence of 
ltiate that 
within the 
:nt for the 
. 158, 165 
es involve 
:rating the 
15 F.2d 41 
nowledge, 
~ntentions. 
I meet that 
petitioner 
the appeal 
WAC 04 082 53395 
Page 4 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains 
the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. 1