dismissed L-1A Case: General Merchandise

IdcmtilYiutdettde'-d to
preventc!e~!r!y wl~"mrrnnted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
u.s.Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship .
>- and Immigration
Services
FILE: EAC 03 16550593 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 04 LOU?
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(15)(L)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
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 ~e made to that office.
R~f
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscls.gov
" EAC 03 165 50593
Page 2 .
mscusstox The Director, Vermont Service Center , denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) summarily dismissed a subsequent appeal based on counsel's failure to
submit a brief or evidence in support of the appeal. The AAO subsequently granted the petitioner's motion to
reopen and affirmed its previous decision to dismiss the appeal. The matter is now before the AAO again on
appeal. The appeal will be rejected.
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of 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. § 110l(a)(15)(L) . The petitioner is a corporat ion organized in the State of
New Jersey that claims to be a wholesaler and dealer of general merchandise. The petitioner claims that it is a
subsidiary of located in Ahmedabad , India. The beneficiary was .initially granted L-1A
classification in order to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend the
beneficiary's stay.
The director denied the pet ition on February 24, 2004, concluding that the beneficiary would not be employed
by the petitioner in a managerial or executive capacity . The AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal and
affirmed its decision on a subsequent motion to reopen , in a dec ision dated May 17,2007.
On June 14,2007 ; the petitioner filed Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal or Motion. The petitioner indicated on
Form I-290B that it is filing an appeal , and that a brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted within 90
days. '
The petitioner's appeal must be rejected. The AAO does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over AAO
decisions. The AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters described at 8 C.F.R . § 103 .1(f)(3)(iii)
(as in effect on February 28, 2003). See DRS Delegation Number 0150.1; 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(iv) .
Accordingly, the appeal is not properly before the AAO.
It should be noted that the petitioner did have the option of filing a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider
the AAO's most recent decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. The AAO notes for the record that the
petitioner has filed only the Form I-290B stating that the petitioner is "being aggrieved by the decision to
deny on facts on law ," and has submitted no brief or documentary evidence. The petitioner's appeal does not
. meet the requirements of a motion. As noted above , the petitioner stated that add itional evidence would be
submitted in 90 days. Although the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii) states that a petitioner may be
permitted additional time to submit a brief or additional evidence to the AAO in conriection 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 §§ 103.5(a)(2) and (3).
. As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(1).
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.