dismissed L-1A Case: Dry Cleaning

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
File: EAC 99 053 50691 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER oat!: J@k 2 5 2~5 
Petition: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
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. 
EAC 99 053 50691 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. A 
subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The AAO upheld that 
dismissal on the petitioner's first motion to reopen and reconsider as well as the petitioner's second motion to 
reopen and reconsider. The AAO subsequently dismissed a third motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter 
is again before the AAO on a fourth motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a dry cleaning and coin operated laundry business. It seeks to extend its authorization to 
employ the beneficiary, its vice president, 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. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been or will be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal and in its first two motions, counsel claimed that the beneficiary is employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. On its third motion, counsel failed to provide a brief or additional evidence 
in support of the motion, and the motion was dismissed on February 3,2004. 
On this fourth motion, counsel asserts that the petitioner is "aggrieved, both in law & fact, by the decision to 
deny the motion," and indicates its intent to submit a brief and to supply additional evidence. Although the 
petitioner states that it will submit additional evidence within 90 days of February 27, 2004, to date there has 
been nothing further submitted. The AAO notes that, although the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(vii) 
allows a petitioner additional time to submit a brief or evidence to the AAO in connection with an appeal, no 
such provision applies to a motion to reopen or reconsider. The additional evidence must comprise the 
motion. See 8 C.F.R. 55 103.5(a)(2) and (3). 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) states, in pertinent part, that 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(3) states, in pertinent part: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or 
petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 
EAC 99 053 50691 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4) states, in pertinent part, that a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed. 
In the instant case, the petitioner's motion does not contain any new facts and is unsupported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the prior decisions were based on an incorrect application of law or 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) policy. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed in accordance 
with 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(4). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought rests solely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.