dismissed L-1A Case: Design

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cl; - - ,;jarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
File: SRC 05 130 50869 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: PQV& ZOOG 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 101 (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. 
A' 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 130 50869 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation and is allegedly a design business.' The petitioner seeks to extend the 
employment of the beneficiary as its president as an L-1A nonimrnigrant 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 (1) the beneficiary will 
be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity; or (2) that the petitioner had been doing 
business during its first year in operation. 
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 C.F.R. 5 103.5a(b), within 33 days if the decision was served by 
mail. The record indicates that the decision of the director was mailed to counsel to the petitioner on Thursday, 
July 28,2005. Counsel to the petitioner filed an appeal with the Texas Service Center on Wednesday, August 3 1, 
2005, 34 days after the decision was mailed. 
Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected on these grounds pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 
lO3-3(a>(2>(v)@>(I>. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a 
motion to reopen as described in 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5(a)(3), the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a 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. fj 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The director declined to treat the late appeal as a 
motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO.' 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
- 
1 
According to Florida state corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in Florida was voluntarily 
"dissolved" on February 8, 2006. Therefore, since the corporation may not cany on any business except that 
necessary to wind up and liquidate its affairs, the company can no longer be considered a legal entity in the 
United States. See Fla. Stat. 607.1405 (2006). Therefore, as this clearly and unequivocally renders the 
petitioner ineligible for the classification sought, the petition could not be approved for this additional reason 
if it were not being rejected. 
2 
Finally, it must be noted that the petitioner fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal. Since 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(l)(v) requires the AAO to summarily dismiss an 
appeal when the appellant fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, 
the AAO would be obligated to summarily dismiss the current appeal if it were not being rejected.