dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Department of Ifuruela~ld ,Security 
20 Massachusetts A\:e., N.W.: kn. 43042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: SRC 97 246 52917 Of 
IN RE: Petitiont 
Benefic] 
Petition: Petition fo UVUUilL LV VCbLlul~ IV~\~J(I JJ(I,J UI ~ne ~rnn~~gratlon 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 10 l(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Thls 1s the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any Mher 1nquu-y must be made to that office. 
Adplmstratlve Appeals Office 
V 
SRC 97 236 52917 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petihon was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, and a 
subsequent appeal was dism~ssed by the Adm~n~strative Appeals Office (AAO). The matter IS now before the 
AAO on a mot~on to reopen. The motlon wll be rejected as untimely filed. 
The petrtioner is engaged m itnportlng and exporting llquor products and clalms to be a wholly-owned 
substdiary of the beneficiary's forelgn employer m Venezuela. It seeks to class~fy the beneficiary as a 
nonimm~grant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and National~ty 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). 
'The director denied the petition on May 11, 1998 concluding that the petitioner had not established that a 
qualifying relationship exists between the United States and foreign entities, that the beneficiary had been and 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, or that the United States and foreign entlties were 
dolng business. The AAO dismissed a subsequently filed appeal on December 9, 1999, and properly advised 
the petitloner of the requirements for fillng a motion to reopen or reconsider. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motlon to reopen or reconsider an action by 
Cit~zenshtp and Immigration Services (CIS) be filed wlthln 30 days of the decislon that the motlon seeks to 
reopen or recons~der, except that fallure to file before thls penod expu-es may be excused m the d~scretion of CIS 
where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and was beyond the control of the petlhoner. 
The instant mohon to reopen was filed on June 8,2004, four years and s&-%=&-&e~the adverse declsion was 
lsstied by the AAO. On motion, the beneficiary states: "The riGZSBT ths lettere [SIC] is to ask tf you can glve 
me t [sic] the opportunity to re-open my case and to glve the opportunity to conbnue bang legal in this country." 
The petitloner offers no explanat~on for the extremely late filing of the instant mohon. As a matter of d~scretion, 
the petitloner's failure to file the motion wlthin the penod allowed wl1 not be excused as either reasonabIe or 
beyond the control of the petitioner. Accord~ngly, the motlon w11 be rejected as untimely filed. 
ORDER: The rnoti0n.i~ rejected.