dismissed L-1A Case: Furniture Manufacturing

PUBLK: CQPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC 07 161 50795 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 APR (P 3 2008 
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: 
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. 
.;* 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 07 161 50795 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Califomia 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. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). 
The petitioner is a Delaware corporation allegedly engaged in the business of furniture manufacturing. The 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 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. $ 
1 101 (a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary had been or will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
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. $ 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 both the petitioner and its counsel on 
September 27, 2007. Counsel to the petitioner filed an appeal with the Califomia Service Center on Thursday, 
November 1,2007,35 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. $ 
103 -3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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. 
$ 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. $ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). A motion to reopen must state the "new" facts to be 
proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. $ 
103.5(a)(2). 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. 8 
C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 4 
103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the untimely appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
The appeal does not state any "new" facts which were not available at the time the petition was filed and does 
not cite any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the director's decision was erroneous. Therefore, 
there is no requirement to treat the appeal as a motion under 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.