dismissed L-1A Case: Clothing Distribution

"identifyingdata deletedto
preventdearly unw~~
invasionofpersonalpn~
PUBLICcopy
1};S. Department of Homelalld Security
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration.
Services
File: WAC 06 099 50031 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 03 ..
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. § 1101(a)(l5)(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.
~-~.
~ ~~_.
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
1{·~ . VIAC 06 099 50031
Page 2
. DISCUSSION: The Director of the Cali~ornia Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and th~ .
matter is now bef.ore the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected
pursuant t08 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l).
The petitioner is a Delaware corporation and is·allegedly in the business of selling and distributing clothing.
.The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice president as an L-lA nonimmigrant intracompany
transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8U.S.C. §
1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 CF.R. § 103.5a(b),within 33 days if the decision was served by
mail. The record iridicatesthat the'decision of the directorwas faxed to and received by counsel on Friday, May
23, 2006. Th~ director use<;l the fax number proVided in the Form 1-907, Request for Premium Processing
Service. Ail appeal was.filed with the California Service C~ter on Frid~y, June 23, 2006, 31 days after the
. decision was served by fax. ' .
Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected oli these grounds pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §
103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l).
. .
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § l03.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if ali untimely appeal meets the requirements of a
motion to reOpen ~s described in 8 CF.R § 103.5(a)(2) ora motion to reconsider as des~ribed in 8 C.F.R... .
§ 103.5(a)(3);the appeal must be treated as a motion, anda 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.§ 103.5(a)(I)(ii). The director declined to treat the late appeal as a
lllotion and forwarded the matter to the AAO.
ORDER: .
'..
The appeal is rejected.