dismissed L-1B Case: Telecommunications

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personai privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
1 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: SRC 06 053 53554 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 MAR 3 0 2MI 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1101(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. 
M Robert P. Wiema , Chief 
b 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 06 053 53554 
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 appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it is a hi-tech telecommunications firm. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
specialized knowledge worker, in the position of chief financial officer, pursuant to fj 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(~).' The director denied the petition based on the 
conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary had at least one continuous year of 
full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years immediately preceding 
the filing of the petition. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that it would submit a brief andlor 
additional evidence to address the director's denial within ninety days. Although counsel submitted a 
brief statement on the Form I-290B, it failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In this 
brief statement, counsel for the petitioner states: 
The Service denied the petition finding that the beneficiary failed to show that she meets the 
one-year full-time employment abroad within the three years immediately preceding the 
filing of the petition[] pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj214.2(1)(3)(iii). The Service's interpretation of 
the law is erroneous as follows: "The Beneficiary must have been employed for one 
continuous year abroad by the employer since 12/07/02."[] The precise interpretation seems 
as follows: "[the] Beneficiary's one-year foreign employment should not be [sic] occurred 
outside the three-year time period from 12/07/02 through 12/07/05. The factual evidence 
demonstrates that the beneficiary's foreign employment, which was exceeding one-year, 
occurred within the time zone specified by law. Due to the Service's misreading of facts and 
imprecise interpretation of rule, the Decision shall be reversed. 
The director, however, provided a detailed analysis and cited the deficiencies in the evidence in the course 
of the denial. Specifically, the director noted that based on the filing date of the petition, the petitioner 
was required to show that the beneficiary had one continuous year of full-time employment abroad 
between December 7, 2002 and December 7, 2005. The director noted that according to the evidence 
submitted, the beneficiary began working abroad for the foreign employer in October 2004, but entered 
the United States on June 26, 2005 in B-1 status. As a result, the director concluded that the beneficiary 
had been employed abroad for eight months, and therefore had not satisfied the regulatory requirements. 
While counsel for the petitioner alleges that the director's interpretation of the law was erroneous, 
counsel's general objection on the Form I-290B does not specifically identify the director's error and is 
-- - 
1 
 In the denial, the director states that the petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an L-1A manager 
or executive. It is noted for the record that, on the first page of Form 1-129, the petitioner failed to clarify 
whether it was seeking L-1A or L-1B classification for the beneficiary. Regardless, the basis of the denial 
addresses a distinct and unrelated issue, and therefore this error by the director has no bearing on the 
outcome of this petition. 
SRC 06 053 53554 
Page 3 
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 Sofici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
On the Notice of Appeal received on May 17, 2006, the petitioner clearly indicates that it would send a 
brief with the necessary evidence to the AAO within ninety days. To date there is no indication or 
evidence that the petitioner ever submitted a brief and/or evidence in support of the appeal with the 
Service or with the AA0.' 
Upon review of the evidence in the record, the AAO concurs with the director's findings. A letter from 
the foreign employer dated April 7, 2006 confirms that the beneficiary commenced her employment 
abroad in October of 2004, but was transferred to the United States on June 26,2005 to render services to 
the petitioner under a B-1 ("visitor for business") visa. While it appears that the beneficiary may in fact 
have been employed by and received a salary from the foreign entity during this period, the fact remains 
that the beneficiary did not remain abroad long enough to accumulate an aggregate total of one year of 
employment prior to the filing of the petition. The record indicates that the beneficiary was physically 
present and working for the foreign entity abroad, at best, for eight months in the three years immediately 
preceding the filing of the petition. While "brief' trips to the United States for business shall not be 
interruptive of the one year continuous employment abroad requirement, such periods will not count 
towards the fulfillment of the requirement. 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(A). As a result, the regulatory 
requirements have not been satisfied. 
Nevertheless, absent a clear statement, brief and/or evidence to the contrary, counsel for 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. $ 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. 
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. fj 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. 
2 
 On March 6, 2007, the AAO sent a fax to counsel for the petitioner. The fax advised counsel that no 
evidence or brief had been received in this matter and requested that the petitioner 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. 
SRC 06 053 53554 
Page 4 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.