dismissed L-1A Case: Custom Framing/Art

lapen~fying da(a &lem ro 
preve~at clearly unwarranted 
4nvmIon of wrsoltal ~rfmcr 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and I[rnrnigration 
FILE: SRC-02-250-5 1275 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DATE: JUL 1 4 2006 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision 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 
SRC-02-250-51275 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The no. 
Administrative Appeals ( 
decision to deny the petiti 
The motion will be dismis 
The petitioner filed this 
president and general ma 
lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Imrr 
a corporation organized 
pictures and artwork. TE 
in Bogota, Colombia. TI. 
in the United States, and 1 
On motion, counsel' subn 
of the AAO. Counsel for 
any new facts to be provi~ 
counsel assertion as justifj 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
be provided in the reopenc 
Based on the plain meani 
have been discovered or p 
Any appeal or motion ba 
supported by an affidavit 
entered into with counsel 
not make to the responde 
be informed of the allegi 
appeal or motion reflect 
respect to any violation o 
I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988 
the company or individl 
representative. The AAC 
assistance of counsel clai. 
Neither the petitioner r 
G-28) in this matter. Ab 
not be recognized, and 2 
C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(3). 
2 
 The word "new" is defi 
found, or learned <new 
(1 984)(emphasis in origin; 
immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
Kce (AAO) dismissed the subsequently filed appeal arid affirmed the director's 
1. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
xl. 
ionimmigrant petition seeking to extend the emp1oymc:nt of the beneficiary as 
iger under the L-1A nonirnmigrant intracompany transferee program pursuant to 9 
;ration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1 10 1(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is 
ider the laws of the state of Florida, and is engaged in providing custom framed 
petitioner claims that it is a subsidiary of Sistemas Professionales LTDA, located 
beneficiary was initially granted a period of stay of one year to open a new office 
e petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. 
:s additional evidence to address the grounds of the director's denial and the findings 
he petitioner does not state any reasons for reconsideration, nor does counsel Msh 
:d in the reopened proceeding. Instead, counsel relies on an ineffective assistance of 
~g the motion to reopen and reconsider. 
i 103.5(a)(2) states, in pertinent part: "A motion to reopen must state the new facts to 
proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence." 
5 of "new," a new fact is found to be evidence that was not available and could not 
sented in the previous proceeding.2 
:d upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires: (1) that the claim be 
~f the allegedly aggrieved respondent setting forth in detail the agreement that was 
with respect to the actions to be taken and what represenitations counsel did or did 
t in this regard, (2) that counsel whose integrity or competence is being impugned 
Ions leveled against him and be given an opportunity to respond, and (3) that the 
fhether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities with 
:ounsel's ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not. Matter of lozada, 19 
afd, 857 F.2d 10 (1 st Cir. 1988). Unfortunately for the petitioner in this instance, 
1 that filed the initial petition for extension was not an accredited attorney or 
is thus unable to consider the motion to reopen or reconsider based on ineffective 
a counsel submitted an Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative (Form 
at a properly executed Form G-28, counsel's representa.tion of the petitioner may 
y assertions made by counsel in this proceeding will not be considered. See 8 
ed as "1. having existed or been made for only a short time . . . 3. Just discovered, 
hdence> . . . ." WEBSTER'S 11 NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 792 
1. 
SRC-02-250-5 1275 
Page 3 
In addition, a review of the evidence that the petitioner submits on motion reveals no fact that could be considered 
"new" under 8 C.F.R. Ij 10 .5(a)(2). See "new" as defined in n.1, supra. All evidence: submitted was previously 
available and could have b en discovered or presented in the previous proceeding. A petitioner has the burden of 
proving eligibility for the b nefit sought, but evidence submitted on motion will not be considered "new" and will 
not be considered a proper 1 asis for a motion to reopen unless it meets the definition for new. 
Motions for the reop 
 rnrnigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as petitions for 
rehearing and motio 
 trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 
485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a .proceeding bears a "heavy 
. at 110. With the current motion, the movant has not met that burden. The 
Furthermore, 8 C.F.R. Ij 1 3.5(a)(2) states, in pertinent part: 
4 
A motion to 
 must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
A motion to reconsider a decision 0111 an application or 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
Although counsel has 
 a motion entitled "Motion to Reopen and Reconsider," counsel does not submit 
any document that 
 requirements of a motion to reconsider. Counsel does not state any reasons for 
reconsideration 
 decisions in support of a motion to reconsider. Counsel does not argue that 
an incorrect application of law or factual error. Other than the title of the 
to reconsider should be considered as an alternative to the motion to 
intended to file a motion to reconsider, the petitioner's motion 
will be dismissed. 
Finally, it should be note 
 the record that, unless CIS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion to reopen or 
reconsider does not stay 
 of any decision in a case or extend a previously set departure date. 8 
C.F.R. Ij 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
The burden of proof in the e proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. 
The petitioner has not sus ained that burden. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4) states that "[a] motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements s all be dismissed." Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not 
be reopened, and the previ 1 us decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER. The motion is dismissed. 
Based on a review 
 motion, it appears that counsel for the petitioner has submitted a simple motion to 
reopen which is 
 "Motion to Reopen and Reconsider." Counsel does not explicitly claim that 
there are two 
 alternative, nor does counsel cite to any regulation that would clarify the 
intended motion.