dismissed L-1A Case: Business Development

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: LIN 03 058 5 1925 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: a 2 3 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
- /---I&. "-- 
~omlemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 03 058 51925 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the subsequently filed appeal and affirmed the director's 
decision to deny the petition. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The AAO will 
dismiss the motion. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend its authorization to employ the 
beneficiary as an L- 1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner is allegedly a limited 
liability company organized under the laws of the State of 
 developer and 
owner." The petitioner claims a qualifying relationship with 
 of Pakistan. 
On December 12, 2002, the petitioner filed the current Form 1-129 petition. On December 16, 2002, the 
director requested additional evidence. Specifically, the director requested that the petitioner do the 
following: 
Submit evidence to establish that the petitioning entity will continue to maintain a qualifying 
organization in another country, directly or through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary, 
during the beneficiary's stay in the United States which will do business as an employer. 
On January 7,2003, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that it had 
a qualifying business relationship with the foreign entity. On January 21, 2003, the petitioner filed an appeal. 
The AAO dismissed the appeal on October 1, 2004. On October 29, 2004, the petitioner filed a motion to 
reopen the AAO's decision. Along with its motion, the petitioner provided additional documentary evidence 
in an attempt to establish the existence of a qualifying relationship. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof 
in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(2) state, in pertinent part, that "[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." Based on the plain meaning of "new," a new fact is found to be evidence that was not available and 
could not have been discovered or presented in the previous proceeding.' Since all of the evidence which the 
petitioner submits could have been presented in the previous proceeding, there is no evidence submitted on 
' The word "new" is defined as "1. having existed or been made for only a short time . . . 3. Just discovered, 
found, or learned <new evidence> . . . ." 
 WEBSTER'S I1 NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 792 
(1 984)(emphasis in origmal). 
LIN 03 058 51925 
Page 3 
motion that may be considered "new" under 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5(a)(2) and that could be considered a proper basis for 
a motion to reopen. 
Moreover, the petitioner was put on notice of required evidence regarding a qualifying relationship and given 
a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner 
failed to submit the requested evidence in response to the director's request for evidence and now submits it 
on motion after the adjudication of the appeal. However, the AAO will not consider this evidence for any 
purpose. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 
1988). 
Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as petitions for 
rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 
323 (1 992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1 988)). A party seelung to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy 
burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the movant has not met that burden. The 
motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
Finally, it should be noted for the record that, unless Citizenship and Immigration Services directs otherwise, the 
filing of a motion to reopen does not stay the execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set 
departure date. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
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. Title 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(4) states that "[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. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.