dismissed L-1B Case: Technology Services

U.S. Departmer~t of Homeland Sec~rrity 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
i&tifLing data deledu 
prevent clearly unwd 
invasion of penona! 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: WAC 07 157 50255 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: @ 2 7 200 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 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 been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
I";.[Jc- 
6obert P iemann, Chief 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
u7ww i~rri~ nnv 
WAC 07 157 50255 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner claims to be a provider of ASIC and embedded solutions and services. It seeks to extend 
the employment of the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized 
knowledge pursuant to 5 101 (a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). 
On June 12, 2007, the director approved the petition. On November 30, 2007, the director issued a notice 
of intent to revoke the petition, noting that the evidence did not support a finding that a qualifying 
relationship existed between the petitioner and the foreign entity. In a response dated December 20, 
2007, the petitioner addressed the director's notice and submitted additional documentation in support of 
the qualifying relationship. The director found that the evidence submitted, both with the initial petition 
and in response to the notice of intent to revoke, was insufficient to establish the petitioner's eligibility. 
Consequently, the director revoked the petition on January 10,2008. 
On January 24, 2008, counsel for the petitioner filed a motion to reopen / reconsider the director's 
revocation. On February 19, 2008, the director dismissed the motion, concluding that it failed to state 
new facts and was not supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. Furthermore, the director 
concluded that it did not state the reasons for reconsideration supported by pertinent precedent decisions 
to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or service policy. 
On the Notice of Appeal received on March 17, 2008, counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that she 
would send a brief with the necessary evidence to the AAO within thirty days. Although counsel 
submitted an explanatory statement on Form I-290B, she failed to address the director's conclusions. In 
this brief statement, counsel stated: 
The Service has made an error on the facts, statement of facts and error on the conclusion of 
the law in not reopening the case on our MTR and withdrawing the revocation and letting the 
previous approval stand. 
We hereby appeal the decision of the Service to dismiss our MTR and request the file be sent 
to the AAO where they can review this decision and underlying facts of the case. 
This is an appeal of the service's decision to dismiss out MTR. We have 33 days to respond 
to this decision and therefore this appeal is timely filed. 
Counsel's general statement on Fonn I-290B did not address or specifically identify any errors on the part 
of the director, and is simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the 
director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
WAC 07 157 50255 
Page 3 
Although counsel requested additional time to submit an appeal, to date there is no indication that the 
petitioner or counsel ever submitted a brief and/or evidence in support of the appeal with the Service or 
with the AAo.' As stated above, absent a clear statement, brief andlor evidence to the contrary, the 
petitioner does not identify, specifically, an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. Hence, the 
appeal must be summarily dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. tj 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. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with 
the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
I 
 On August 12, 2008, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief 
had been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief and/or additional 
evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. As of the date of this 
decision, the AAO has received no response from counsel or the petitioner.