dismissed L-1A Case: Apparel

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
data deleted to U.S. Citizenship 
vent clearly unwe and Immigration 
bvg&m of perso~~~i privsoj. Services 
mcCOYr 
File: SRC 05 156 5 1002 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: g';\' 3 0 2035 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Oflice 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 156 51002 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). 
The petitioner is a Texas corporation allegedly engaged in the business of manufacturing, designing, and 
selling apparel.' The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president to open a new office as an L- 
1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding that 
the petitioner failed to establish that the intended United States operation, within one year of approval of the 
petition, will support a managerial or executive position. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. !j 103.3(a)(2) requires an affected party to file the complete appeal within 30 days after 
service of the decision, or, in accordance with 8 C.F.R 5 103.5a(b), within 33 days if the decision was served by 
mail. The record indicates that the decision of the director was faxed to and received by counsel to the petitioner 
on Saturday, July 2,2005. The director used the fax number provided by counsel to the petitioner in the Form I- 
907, Request for Premium Processing Service, which was identified as the preferred form of communication. 
Counsel to the petitioner filed an appeal with the Texas Service Center on Tuesday, August 2,2005,3 1 days after 
the decision was served upon counsel to the petitioner by fax. 
Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected on these grounds pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a 
motion to reopen as described in 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 
103.5(a)(3), the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decision must be made on the merits of the case. 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)(I)(ii). The director declined to treat the late appeal as a 
motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
'It should be noted that, according to Texas state corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in Texas is 
not in good standing. Therefore, as the State of Texas has forfeited the petitioner's corporate privileges, this 
calls into question the petitioner's continued eligibility for the benefit sought. 
'It should be noted that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) requires an officer to whom an appeal is taken to 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 this matter, the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous 
conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding. Therefore, the appeal would be summarily 
dismissed if it were not being rejected for the reason given in this decision.