dismissed L-1A Case: Computer Hardware

identifjrlng data deleted to 
 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invmicm of personal privacy 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 04 068 51685 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 3 2009 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. !$ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
40 *A 
John F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 068 51685 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: On November 4, 2005, the Director of the California Service Center denied the 
nonimmigrant visa petition after considering a motion to reopen the initial denial of the petition dated March 
24,2004. The petitioner appealed the November 4, 2005 denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), 
and, on April 19, 2007, the AAO dismissed the appeal. On May 22, 2007, the petitioner filed a Motion to 
ReopenlReconsider the AAOts decision in accordance with 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5. The Motion will be dismissed 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $8 103.5(a)(l)(iii), 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), 103.5(a)(2), 103.5(a)(3), and 103.5(a)(4). 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of the beneficiary as an 
L- 1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws 
of the State of California and is allegedly a wholesaler of computer parts and hardware. The director denied 
the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United 
States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The AAO dismissed the subsequently filed appeal. 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that the AAO erred in dismissing the appeal because the record establishes 
that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Upon review, the motion shall be dismissed for failing to meet applicable requirements. 
First, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.5(a)(l)(iii) lists the filing requirements for motions to reopen and 
motions to reconsider. This regulation states that motions "shall be submitted on Form I-290B." In this 
matter, the petitioner did not submit its motion on Form I-290B. Accordingly, the motion must be dismissed 
for failing to meet applicable requirements. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4); see also 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(a). 
Second, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) requires that motions be "[alccompanied by a 
statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any 
judicial proceeding." In this matter, the motion does not contain the statement required by 8 C.F.R. $ 
103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C). Once again, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4) states that a motion which does not 
meet applicable requirements must be dismissed. Therefore, because the instant motion did not meet the 
applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must be dismissed for this reason. 
Furthermore, upon review, the AAO will dismiss the motion for failing to meet the applicable requirements 
for motions to reopen set forth in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2). "[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." Id. In 
this matter, the petitioner offers no new evidence on motion. The unsupported statements of counsel or the 
petitioner in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. 
Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
Accordingly, the motion does not meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reopen and must be 
dismissed for that reason. 
Finally, the AAO will dismiss the motion for failing to meet the applicable requirements for motions to reconsider 
set forth in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). This regulation states, in pertinent part, that "[a] motion to reconsider must 
state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the 
WAC 04 068 51685 
Page 3 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or V.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] 
policy." Id. In this matter, the petitioner fails to cite to any pertinent precedent decisions that establish that the 
AAO's decision to dismiss the appeal, based on the petitioner's failure to establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy. 
For example, the petitioner cites in its motion three precedent decisions decided by the regional commissioner of 
the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The petitioner claims that its ''conclusion is consistence 
[sic] with the reasoning" of these decisions. Importantly, however, the petitioner does not argue that the AAO's 
decision to dismiss the appeal was an incorrect application of the law as set forth in these precedent decisions. 
Absent some articulation of the pertinence of the authority to the director's reasoning, the arbitrary citation of 
precedent decisions will not permit a motion to conform to the applicable requirements for motions to reconsider 
set forthin 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(3). 
Regardless, upon review, the cited precedent decisions are not pertinent to the instant matter. The petitioner 
offers no evidence that the facts in those precedent decisions are analogous to the instant petition or, crucially, 
that the AAO misapplied the law in dismissing the appeal. In Matter of Vaillancourt, 13 I&N Dec. 654 (Reg. 
Cornm'r 1970), the regional commissioner concluded that a service parts manager was employed abroad in a 
specialized knowledge capacity and that, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, could be transferred to the 
United States to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The nature of the beneficiary's proposed 
employment in the United States was not addressed by the regional commission. In Matter of Bocris, 13 I&N 
Dec. 601 (Reg. Comm'r 1970), the regional commissioner decided that a beneficiary may be classified as a 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee even though he is also the beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition. 
Again, the nature of the beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States was not addressed. Finally, in 
Matter of Pozzoli, 14 I&N Dec. 569 (Reg. Cornm'r 1974), the regional commissioner addressed the source of the 
beneficiary's remuneration, not the nature of his managerial or executive duties in the United States. 
Accordingly, as none of the precedent decisions cited by the petitioner are pertinent to the AAO's application of 
law or policy in its dismissal of the appeal, the motion fails to meet applicable requirements. The random citation 
of authority will not permit a motion to reconsider to withstand scrutiny. Rather, as made clear by the 
regulations, the movant must, at a minimum, cite pertinent precedent decisions and specifically connect this 
law with the AAO's alleged failure to follow these precedents. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). As the petitioner 
failed to do this in this matter, the motion must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(4).' 
Motions for the reopening or reconsideration 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. See INS v. Doherty, 
502 U.S. 3 14, 323 (1 992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1 988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding 
'The petitioner also cites as authority an unpublished AAO decision, Matter of Harrison PaciJic Inc., WAC 
92 192 5 1 184 (AAO Feb. 16, 1994). However, unpublished AAO decisions are not "pertinent precedent 
decisions" which can establish that the AAO's decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. 
8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(3). While 8 C.F.R. 4 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all 
USCIS employees in the administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act, unpublished decisions are 
not similarly binding. 
WAC 04 068 51685 
Page 4 
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 will be dismissed. 
Finally, it should be noted for the record that, unless USCIS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion does not stay 
the execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set departure date. 8 C.F.R. § 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. 8 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not 
be reopened or reconsidered, and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.