dismissed E-2 Case: Engineering Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I-C-E-C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 17,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Applicant, an engineering construction consulting company, seeks to employ the foreign national 
in the United States as its president and chief executive officer under the E-2 nonimmigrant 
classification for treaty investors. See section 10l(a)(l5)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(E)(ii) and 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(e)(2). In accordance with the regulations 
at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( e )(20) and (21 ), the application for a change of status and extension of stay was 
filed on Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. See 8 C.P.R.§ 214.l(c)(l). 
The Director, California Service Center denied the application. The Applicant then filed a motion to 
reopen and reconsider on January 26, 2015, and motion to reopen on April 24, 2015. The Director 
granted the motions but affirmed the denial of the application on both occasions. The Applicant then 
filed another motion to reopen and reconsider on September 23, 2015. The Director dismissed the 
combined motion. The Applicant appealed that decision to our office on December 3, 2015. We 
rejected the appeal based on our lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Applicant filed a motion to 
reopen and reconsider on May 25, 2016. We denied the combined motion, advising that since we 
rejected the appeal, there was no merits-based decision to reopen or reconsider, and we had no 
jurisdiction to grant the motion. 
The matter is now before us again on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, the 
Applicant cites several sources in support of its claim that this office does in fact have jurisdiction to 
adjudicate its motion, including the AAO Practice Manual and two recent adopted decisions in 
which we adjudicated petition extensions involving H -1 B and L-1 A nonimmigrant classifications. 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion. 
As we discussed in our prior decision rejecting the appeal, and noted in our latest decision denying the. 
prior motion, there is no appeal from the denial of an application for an extension of stay of an E.:1 or 
E-2 treaty trader or treaty investor. 8 C.P.R.§ 214.l(c)(5). 
Further, although an application for E-2 treaty investor status is made on Form I-129, there is no 
petition requirement for E-2 treaty investors and there is no petition determination that may be appealed. 
When the Immigration and Naturalization Service (former INS, now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS)) published the Final Rule governing the nonimmigrant classification, it noted: 
Matter of 1-C-E-C-, Inc. 
[U]nder section 103 of the Act, the service has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate 
applications for admission to this country, as well as applications for change of 
nonimmigrant status to, or extensions of stay in, E nonimmigrant classification. In this 
regard, it should be noted that, unlike other employment-driven classifications, 
E nonimmigrant visa classification is not conferred by means of a petition, but instead 
by an application. 
62 Fed. Reg. 48138 (Sept. 12, 1997). 
While the Applicant correctly states that our office has appellate jurisdiction over most employment­
based nonimmigrant visa matters filed on Form I-129, the E nonimmigrant classification is an 
exception. Our appellate jurisdiction over applications for E nonimmigrant classification filed on 
Form I-129 is limited to applications filed under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(e)(23), which provides for special 
procedures for classifying foreign investors in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
(CNMI) as E-2 nonimmigrant treaty investors, and specifically authorizes these employers to appeal 
denied applications to the AAO. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(e)(23)(ix). 
Although the Applicant filed an appeal subsequent to the Director's denial of the application, we 
properly rejected that appeal. The regulation on point states: r 
Decision in Form 1-129 or 1-539 extension proceedings. Where an applicant or 
petitioner demonstrat~s eligibility for a requested extension, it may be granted at the 
discretion of the Service. There is no appeal from the denial of an application for 
extension of stay .filed on Form 1-129 or 1-539. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.1(c)(5) (emphasis added). 
i 
Additionally, 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(6) states that we may only consider an appeal from a motion if the 
original decision was appealable before us. Such is not the case in the matter at hand. We did not 
err in rejecting the appeal and, because the Applicant filed a combined motion on an appeal of an 
application over which we have no jurisdiction, we properly denied the previous combined motion. 
Because the Applicant has filed another combined motion on an appeal of an application over which we 
have no jurisdiction, the combined motion must be denied. 
1 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of1-C-E-C-, Inc., ID# 149530 (AAO Jan. 17, 2017) 
1 
When we reject an appeal, there is no merit-based decision to reopen orreconsider. 
2