dismissed L-1A Case: Computer And Construction

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC 04 026 51417 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 0 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. § 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
a. 
ye--- - -< - - 
< ;* 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 026 51417 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: On December 3, 2003, the Director of the Texas Service Center denied the nonirnmigrant 
visa petition. The petitioner appealed this denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) and, on June 2, 
2005, the AAO dismissed the appeal. On July 29, 2005, purported counsel to the petitioner filed a Motion to 
Reopen and Reconsider the AAO's decision in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. The motion will be 
dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $5 103.5(a)(l)(i), 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(A), and 103.5(a)(4). 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation allegedly engaged in the computer and construction business. The 
petitioner seeks to extend the employment of the beneficiary as its general manager 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 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. The AAO 
subsequently dismissed the appeal. 
The Motion to Reopen and Reconsider filed on July 29, 2005 was signed byowever, the 
Form G-28, Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative, was signed by the beneficiary and not by, or 
on behalf of, the petitioner. ~oreoverentifies himself in the Motion as counsel to the 
beneficiaries, not as counsel to the petitioner. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regulations require 
that motions be signed by the affected party or the attorney or representative of record. 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.5(a)(l)(iii)(A). CIS regulations specifically prohibit a beneficiary of a visa petition, or a representative 
acting on a beneficiary's behalf, from filing a petition; the beneficiary of a visa petition is not a recognized 
party in a proceeding. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(3). As the beneficiaries and their purported representative are not 
recognized parties, counsel is not authorized to file a motion and the Motion must be dismissed for this 
reason. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(A) and 103.5(a)(4). 
Also, CIS regulations require that motions to reconsider be filed within 30 days of the underlying decision. 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). Likewise, CIS regulations require that motions to reopen be filed within 30 days of 
the underlying decision, except that failure to timely file a motion to reopen may be excused in the discretion 
of CIS where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and was beyond the affected party's control. Id. 
In this matter, the Motion was filed on July 29, 2005, 57 days after the AAO's June 2, 2005 decision. The 
record indicates that the AAO's decision was mailed to both the petitioner at its business address and to its 
representative. Therefore, to the extent the Motion is a motion to reconsider, it is untimely and must be 
dismissed for that reason. To the extent the Motion is a motion to reopen, the Motion does not establish that 
the failure to file the Motion within 30 days of the decision was reasonable and beyond the affected party's 
control. While the AAO understands that the basis for the Motion is ineffective representation by an 
unlicensed immigration consultant, the Motion does not establish that this ineffective representation 
prejudiced the petitioner's ability to timely file the instant Motion, especially when the AAO gave notice by 
mail of its decision to the petitioner at its business address. When a party receives notice of a decision and 
fails to take the required action, an untimely motion to reopen may be denied even when the underlying 
unfavorable decision was the product of ineffective, or even fraudulent, representation by an unlicensed 
SRC04026 51417 
Page 3 
immigration consultant or attorney. See generally Chen v. Gonzales, 131 Fed. Appx. 734 (1" Cir. 2005) 
(unpublished); Oliveira v. Gonzales, 127 Fed. Appx. 720 (5~ Cir. 2005).' 
As the motion did not meet the applicable requirements, it will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed. 
'While the record is not entirely clear, there is a possibility thatmay have sent the instant Motion 
directly to the AAO instead of to the Texas Service Center. There is also a possibility that, had - 
sent the Motion to the AAO, it may have arrived within 30 days of the underlying decision. Both the 
averment in paragraph 3 of the Motion and evidence in the record of a package being sent to the Texas 
Service Center by the AAO marked "motion w/ fee" imply that this may have occurred. However, even if the 
instant Motion had reached the AAO within 30 days of the underlying decision, this would not make the 
Motion timely. 
 Title 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(E) requires movants to file motions with "the office 
maintaining the record upon which the unfavorable decision was made for forwarding to the official having 
jurisdiction." In this case, the office maintaining the record is the Texas Service Center, not the AAO. As 
explained on the first page of the June 2, 2005 decision which was sent directly to the petitioner, all 
documents relating to the case were returned to the office which originally decided the case, i.e., the Texas 
Service Center, and that all further inquiries must be directed to that office. Therefore, the filing of the 
Motion with the AAO would have been in violation of 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(E), would not have tolled 
the filing deadline for the Motion, and would be independent grounds for dismissal pursuant 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.5(a)(4).