dismissed L-1B Case: Refrigeration

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 154 50621 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: uN 0 6 zm5 
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. 5 1 lOl(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 154 50621 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonirnmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
According to the documentary evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was incorporated in 1986 and 
claims to be a manufacturer and refrigeration. The petitioner claims to be an affiliate of 
Arab Refrigeration Co., located i The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the 
United States as a refrigeration mechanic. The director determined that the evidence was insufficient to 
establish that a qualifying relationship existed between the U.S. and foreign entities, that the beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge, and that the proffered position requires an individual with specialized 
knowledge. 
On appeal, counsel indicated that she would submit a brief andtor evidence to the AAO within 60 days. The 
notice of appeal is dated December 5, 2003. To date, the AAO has not received any additional evidence. 
Therefore, the record is considered complete. 
Counsel asserts in the notice of appeal that the director made several errors of fact and law concerning the 
beneficiary's qualifications as a specialized knowledge candidate and the existence of an affiliate relationship 
between the U.S. and foreign entities. 
Counsel's error claim is not persuasive. In the instant case the requirements for the L-1 classification are 
found in Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which states in part: 
. . . an alien who, within three years preceding the time of his application for admission into 
the United States, has been employed continuously for a year by a firm or corporation or 
other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States 
temporarily in order to continue to render his services to the same employer or a subsidiary or 
affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge 
Counsel fails to specifically address the director's objections relating to the lack of evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary would be employed in the United States primarily in a specialized knowledge capacity or that 
an affiliate relationship exists between the U.S. and foreign entities. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(v) states in part: 
Summary dismissal. 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. 
As counsel has failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the 
appeal, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought rests solely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.