dismissed L-1B Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PlJBLIC copy 
idsntiqim dm 6rI4:tcd to 
prevent clm2.-, 'xivrmanted 
invasion of perwnal privacy 
FILE: LIN 05 164 51601 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 6 20fjt 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 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 olginally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 05 164 51601 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 engaged in the design and development of enhancements to telecom 
infrastructures. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with 
specialized knowledge pursuant to 8 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 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 knowledge or that he would be employed in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that he would submit a brief and/or 
additional evidence to address the director's denial withinthirty days. Although counsel submitted a brief 
statement on the Form I-290B, he failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In this brief 
statement, counsel states "[tlhe decision is inconsistent with the applic&le immigration regulations. The 
initial evidence together with the RFE response show overwhelming compliance with the governing 
criteria." The director, however, provided a detailed analysis and specifically cited the deficiencies in the 
evidence in the course of the denial. Counsel's generak objection on the Form I-290B, without 
specifically identifying any errors on the part of the director, is simply insufficient to overcome the 
well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached based orihthe 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 SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
On the Notice of Appeal received on August 19, 2005, counsel for the petitioner clearly indicates that it 
would send a brief with the necessary evidence to the AAO within thirty days. According to 8 C.F.R. 8 
103.3(a)(2)(i), the petitioner "shall file the complete appeal including any supporting brief with 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 Monday, August 22, 2005. While the petitioner may request that it be 
granted additional time to submit an appeal brief, no such request was made in this case. See 8 C.F.R. tj 
103.3(a)(2)(vii). Even if additional time to submit a brief in support of the appeal had been requested and 
approved, to date there is no indication or evidence that the petitioner ever submitted a brief andlor 
evidence in support of the appeal with the Service or with the AAO. 
On October 16, 2006, 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. In a faxed response 
dated October 26, 2006, counsel advised that no brief or additional evidence had been filed in support of 
the appeal. 
As stated above, absent a clear statement, brief and/or 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). 
LIN 05 164 51601 
Page 3 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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.