dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
t ,. ~~~t~ and Immigration 
n ni 5 3.. ;,,ral ohar3 
FILE: EAC 96 038 53502 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
IN RE: 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. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. f 
Aobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 96 038 53502 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center. The petitioner filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeal Office (AAO) that was 
dismissed. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider that was granted 
by the MO, and the previous decision was affirmed. A second, third, and fourth motion were 
also dismissed by the AAO. A fifth motion to reopen was granted, and the previous decisions of 
the director and the AAO were affirmed. The matter is again before the AAO on a sixth motion. 
The motion to reopen and reconsider will be dismissed. 
The petitioner, Conch USA Incorporated, endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a manager or 
executive pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 3 1 1 0 1 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner imports, wholesales, and distributes shoes, umbrellas, 
raincoats, and other goods from China. It seeks to extend the petition's validity and the 
beneficiary's stay temporarily as the U.S. entity's vice president of international marketing. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be 
primarily employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The director's decision was affirmed 
by the AAO. 
In the present motion, the petitioner submits a letter reporting the sales revenue of the company from 
1995 until 2003 and further explaining the beneficiary's duties. However, a review of the evidence 
submitted on motion reveals no fact that could be considered "new" under 8 C.F.R. 
section 103.5(a)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) states, in pertinent part: "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." 
On review, the record reveals that the sales and financial data had been considered in the previous 
decision of the director and the AAO or is evidence that was previously available and could have 
been discovered or presented in the previous proceeding. In addition, the evidence is not supported 
by documentary evidence or affidavits. The petitioner must establish eligbility at the time of filing 
the nonirnmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 
I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Cornrn. 1978). Accordingly, the evidence submitted on motion will not be 
considered new and will not be considered a proper basis for a motion to reopen. 
In addition, the petitioner failed to submit any pertinent precedent decisions pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5(a)(3). 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. 
Counsel does not state any reasons for reconsideration nor cite any precedent decisions in support of 
a motion to reconsider. Counsel does not argue that the previous decisions were based on an 
EAC 96 038 53502 
Page 3 
incorrect application of law or Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) policy. Accordingly, the 
petitioner's motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
Finally, it should be noted for the record that, unless CIS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion to 
reopen and reconsider does not stay the execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set 
departure date. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. tj 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 103.5(a)(4) states "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." 
Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO 
will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.