dismissed L-1A Case: Hotel Management

i 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
3 .-+,-A U S. C~t~zensh~p and Irnrn~gratlon Serv~cea 
identifjlip~ fi??. cL % . 
 #-9 
 Of$ce ofAdminrstratrve Appeals, MS 2090 
p~~ve;;Z .;'.'<.' "J . *I :,.s.i Washington, DC 20529-2090 
,. 
alr,v~:io~: sf i ,: -* :-I". ;,riv?c;. 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
- -p s,oFy 
nv-i .I 
FILE: EAC 08 012 53542 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 I0 1 (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 be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for the 
specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 012 53542 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's subsequently filed 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- I A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of 
New Jersey, operates a hotel and claims to be engaged in commercial and real estate dealings. The beneficiary 
was previously granted one year in 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 for three additional years. 
The director denied the petition on April 10, 2008, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the 
beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The AAO 
dismissed the petitioner's subsequent appeal and affirmed the director's determination in a decision dated 
September 30, 2008. The AAO further found that the petitioner failed to establish that the U.S. company had 
been doing business for the year prior to filing the extension request, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
2 14.2(1)(14)(ii)(B), and denied the petition on this additional and alternative basis. 
On November 3, 2008, the petitioner filed the instant appeal. The petitioner indicated on Form I-290B, Notice 
of Appeal or Motion, that it is filing an appeal, and that a brief andlor additional evidence will be submitted 
within 90 days. As of this date, no brief or additional evidence has been received. 
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. 8 103.l(f)(3)(iii) 
(as in effect on February 28, 2003). 
 See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1; 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(iv). 
Accordingly, the appeal is not properly before the AAO. 
Therefore, as the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 5 103,3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
Although the appeal will be rejected, 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 decision within 33 days of service pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5. The petitioner's appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion. As noted above, the petitioner 
stated that a brief and additional evidence would be submitted in 90 days. Although the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.3(a)(2)(vii) states that a petitioner may be permitted additional time to submit a brief or additional 
evidence to the AAO in 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 $5 103.5(a)(2) and (3). 
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. 3 103.5(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 
EAC 08 012 53542 
Page 3 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the petitioner offers no "new" evidence, which could not have been presented in the initial proceeding. 
Likewise, the petitioner's brief statement on Form I-290B fails to cite specifically to any pertinent precedent 
decisions establishing that the AAO1s decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. 
As noted, the petitioner indicated that its argument would be detailed in a brief that has yet to be submitted, 
eight months after the appeal was filed. 
Finally, the AAO acknowledges that the petitioner requests the opportunity to present an "oral representation" 
before the AAO, "in the interest of justice." The regulations provide that the requesting party must explain in 
writing why oral argument is necessary. Furthermore, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(b), U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has the sole authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument and will grant 
argument only in cases involving unique factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately addressed in 
writing. In this instance, the petitioner identified no unique factors or issues of law to be resolved. Moreover, 
the written record of proceeding fully represents the facts and issues in this matter. Consequently, the request 
for oral argument is denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.