dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
~dentifyhg data deleted to 
prevent drarly unwarranted 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
e -- 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: MAY 0 4 2006 
SRC 04 080 50579 
Petition: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
COURTESY COPY TO: 
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. 
mobert P. Wiernann, Chief 
/ 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based visa petition. 
 The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) subsequently rejected an appeal pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I), without rendering a decision. The matter is now before the AAO on an "amended 
notice of appeal" or in the alternative a motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be rejected. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 
10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 l(a)(15)(L). 
The director denied the petition on May 11, 2005. On June 13, 2005, counsel for the beneficiary submitted a 
Form G-28, Entry of Appearance of Attorney or Representative and a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, both 
indicating that he represented the beneficiary. In accordance with 8 C.F.R 5 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B), "affected 
party" means (in addition to the Service) the person or entity with legal standing in a proceeding. It does not 
include the beneficiary of a visa petition. Inasmuch as neither the beneficiary nor his representative had 
standing to file an appeal in this matter, the AAO rejected the appeal as improperly filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
9 1 03.3(a)(2)(v)(A)( 1 ). 
The petitioner has now filed an amended notice of appeal of the director's decision or in the alternative a 
motion seeking to reopen and reconsider the appeal that was rejected by the AAO. Counsel's amended notice 
of appeal was filed November 7, 2005, more than five months subsequent to the director's decision on May 
11.2005. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal within 30 days of service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was 
mailed, the appeal must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5a(b). In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) office shall be 
stamped to show the time and date of actual receipt, if it is properly signed, executed, and accompanied by the 
correct fee. For calculating the date of filing, the appeal shall be regarded as properly filed on the date that it 
is so stamped by the service center or district office. In this matter, as the amended notice of appeal was filed 
more than five months subsequent to the director's decision, the notice was not filed timely. 
Moreover, as the appeal was rejected by the AAO, there is no decision on the part of the AAO that may be 
reopened in this proceeding. According to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(ii), jurisdiction over a motion resides in the 
official who made the latest decision in the proceeding. The AAO did not enter a decision in this matter. 
Because the director rendered the disputed decision, the AAO has no jurisdiction over this motion and the 
motion must be rejected. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a 
motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decision must be 
made on the merits of the case. Again, the official having jurisdiction over a motion is the official who made 
the last decision in the proceeding, in this case the service center director. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The 
director declined to treat the late appeal as a motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
Of note, counsel for the beneficiary submits documentation on appeal that had not been submitted to the 
director prior to her adjudication. However, the director had requested this information prior to rendering her 
decision. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether 
eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
§$ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry 
shall be grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
Of further note, where, as here, a petitioner was put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and had been 
given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO would not have accepted this evidence offered 
for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
As the AAO has no jurisdiction over this motion, the motion must be rejected. 
ORDER: The motion is rejected.