dismissed L-1A Case: Advertising And Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 02 038 55327 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 4 200s 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101(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. 
obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Rdministrative Appeals Office 
SRC 02 038 55327 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimrnigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center. On appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the director's decision to 
deny the petition. The matter is now before the MO on a motion to reopen. The MO will 
dismiss the motion. 
The petitioner, Miami S. and S., Inc., endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a manager or 
executive pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner claims to be a wholly owned subsidiary of 
Representaicones Ese y Ese, located in Venezuela. It is engaged in the advertising and export 
business. It seeks to extend the petition's validity and the beneficiary's stay for three years as the 
U.S. entity's general manager. The petitioner was incorporated in the State of Florida in 1992 and 
claims to have three employees. 
On March 11, 2002, the director determined that the beneficiary duties will not be primarily 
managerial. Consequently, the director denied the petition. The petitioner appealed the denial to 
the AAO. On January 10, 2003, the AAO affirmed the denial. In turn, the petitioner submitted a 
motion to reopen. The petitioner's letter in support of the motion asserts that the petitioner is 
"now operating in a fashion that requires the supervision, management, and managerial capacities 
of our [gleneral [mlanager, [the beneficiary]." The petitioner submits its last three Forms 941 
Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, bank statements, and a list of the four employees 
currently working in the U.S. company. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(2) states, in pertinent part: "A motion to reopen must state the 
new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence." 
Counsel has not submitted any new evidence relevant to thls proceeding. A review of the evidence 
submitted on motion reveals no fact that could be considered "new" under 8 C.F.R. 
section 103.5(a)(2). The evidence dated prior to petitioner's appeal has been considered in the 
previous MO decision or is evidence that was previously available and could have been discovered 
or presented in the previous proceeding. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing 
the nonirnmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 
I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Cornm. 1978). Evidence pertaining to the petitioner and beneficiary's 
qualifications as of 2003 has no bearing in this proceeding. 
Counsel does not indicate that this is a motion for reconsideration and the MO observes that 
counsel has not stated any reasons for reconsideration of the MO decision in ths matter. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.5(a)(4) states "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." 
Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not be reopened, and the previous 
decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
SRC 02 038 55327 
Page 3 
Finally, it should be noted for the record that, unless Citizenship and Immigration Services directs 
otherwise, the filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider does not stay the execution of any decision 
in a case or extend a previously set departure date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
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. $ 1361. Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.