dismissed E-2 Case: Retail

.
0 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-0-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 8, 2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Applicant, a pet supplies store, seeks to employ the foreign national in the United States as its 
"VP/Manager" under the E-2 nonimmigrant classification for treaty investors. See section 
101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(E)(ii) and 
8 C.F.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.F.R. § 214.1(c)(l). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the application. The Applicant then filed two 
combined motions to reopen and reconsider 1 and which were 
both rejected because the forms were incorrectly completed. Two more motions ( 
and ) followed which were both dismissed by the Director. 
The Applicant appealed the latter decision to our office. We rejected the appeal 1 
based on our lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Applicant filed a motion to reopen and reconsider 
We denied the combined motion, advising the Applicant that we had no 
jurisdiction to grant the motion and that since we rejected the appeal, there was no merits-based 
decision for us to reopen or reconsider. The Applicant proceeded to tile a second motion 
1, arguing that this office does have jurisdiction to adjudicate its motion. Once 
again, we denied the motion, reminding the Applicant that 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.F.R. 
§ 214.l(c)(5). 
The matter is now before us again on a motion to reopen. On motion, the Applicant cites various case 
law in support of the contention that the Director did not properly exercise her discretion in denying the 
application and the motion that stemmed from that denial, pointing out that the motion was tiled "on an 
emergency late filing basis" where the late filing purportedly resulted from a "scrivener error." The 
Applicant further contends that our "refusal to exercise subject matter jurisdiction" is a violation of due 
process and, as in its prior motion, cites to 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 to 
support its arguments. 
Upon review, we will deny the Applicant's third motion before us. 
Matter of L-0-, Inc. 
As noted in our prior decision, 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 it published the Final Rule governing the nonimmigrant classification, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (former INS, now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS)) noted: 
[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. 1 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 dismissal of the second combined 
motion, we properly rejected that appeal. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(c)(5) states: 
Decision in Form 1-129 or 1-539 extension proceedings. Where an applicant or 
petitioner demonstrates 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 ~f stay filed on Form 1-129 or 1-539. 
(Emphasis added.) 
Additionally 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(6) states that we may only consider an appeal from a motion if the 
original decision was appealable before us. Here, the denial of the request for a change of status to 
the E-2 classification was not appealable. We did not err. in rejecting the appeal, and because the 
Petitioner filed a motion on an appeal of an application over which we have no jurisdiction, we properly 
denied the previous motion. 
1 
Cases for which there is no appeal procedure may be certified to the AAO. 8 C.F.R. § 103.4(a)(5). 
2 
Matter of L-0-, Inc. 
Because the Petitioner has again filed a motion on an appeal of an application over which we have no 
jurisdiction, the motion must be denied? 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of L-0-. Inc., ID# 438760 (AAO Aug. 8, 2017) 
2 
When we reject an appeal, there is no merits-based decision to reopen or reconsider. 
3