dismissed L-1A Case: Beauty Salon

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, Rm. A3042, 425 I Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 01 155 52572 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: E,$ y c *$); 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
P. Wiemann, ~irect&- 
ministrative Appeals Ofice 
WAC 01 155 52572 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
petitioner filed a subsequent appeal. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the appeal 
was not filed in a timely manner. The AAO rejected the appeal without rendering a decision. The matter is 
now before the AAO on a motion to reopen or reconsider. The motion will be rejected. 
The petitioner, a full service beauty salon located in Hawaii, seeks to extend its authorization to employ the 
beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its assistant managerlliaison officer pursuant to section 
10 l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 11 Ol(a)(15)(L). 
The director denied the petitioner on October 12, 2001. On November 23, 2001, counsel for the petitioner 
filed an appeal seeking review of the director's decision. After reviewing the record, the AA0 rejected the 
appeal as the appeal had not been filed in a timely manner. Any appeal that is not filed within the time 
allowed must be rejected as improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l). 
- 
The petitioner has now filed a motion seeking to reopen the appeal that was rejected as untimely filed. 
As the appeal was rejected by the AAO, there is no decision on the part of the AAO that may be reopened or 
reconsidered in this proceeding. According to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii), jurisdiction over a motion resides in 
the official who made the latest decision in the proceeding. Since the AAO was required to reject the 
untimely appeal pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103,3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l), the latest decision in this 
proceeding was that rendered by the director. Therefore, the AAO has no jurisdiction over this motion and 
the motion must be rejected. 
ORDER: The motion is rejected.