dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
in&on of persooal pw 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC-02-046-53295 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 3 2~5 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ I 10 1 (a)(l 5)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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, Director 
' Administrative. Appeals Office 
SRC-02-046-53295 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigtant visa. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the subsequently filed appeal and affirmed the director's 
decision to deny the petition. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reconsider. The motion will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its Executive Manager as 
an L-1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of 
Florida that operates as an importer and exporter of computers, office supplies, and related merchandise. The 
petitioner claims that it is the branch of., located in Caracas, Venezuela. The 
beneficiary was initially approved for L-1A status for one year to open a new office in the United States, and 
the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition 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 affirmed this 
determination on appeal. 
On motion, counsel for the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence to address the director's denial and 
the findings of the AAO. Counsel asserts that the AAO erroneously dismissed the appeal based on a finding that 
the beneficiary will not manage other professionals or managers. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(2) 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. 
In counsel's brief, he quotes the portion of the AA0's decision in which the AAO summarizes the director's 
grounds for denial. Specifically, the AAO stated the following: 
The director determined that the beneficiary is not performing in a managerial or executive 
capacity since the beneficiary is not managng other professionals or managers. The director 
also determined that since the beneficiary is the only employee, it appears that he would have to 
engage in the day-today business activities of the company. 
Counsel offers assertions to overcome these stated grounds for denial, including reference to an unpublished 
AAO decision to stand for the proposition that a sole employee can qualifL as an L-1A executive or manager. 
However, counsel fails to discuss the AAO's grounds for dismissing the appeal. While the AAO provided the 
director's grounds for denial, that portion of the AAO's decision does not represent the AAO's analysis or 
determination. In subsequent portions of the decision, the AAO correctly explained the appropriate use of a 
petitioner's staff size in adjudicating a petition for L-1A status. The AAO provided that section 101(a)(44)(C) of 
SRC-02-046-53295 
Page 3 
the Act requires Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to assess the reasonable needs of a petitioner, in light 
of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization, if staffing levels are used as a factor in 
determining whether the beneficiary will act in a managerial or executive capacity. The AAO examined the 
petitioner's reasonable needs, and concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that its needs can be met with 
the beneficiary functioning in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. In fact, in the pnor appeal, the 
petitioner's previous counsel raised the same assertion that counsel now makes on motion. The AAO correctly 
addressed the issue of the appropriate consideration of the petitioner's staffing, and thus counsel's assertions on 
motion do not "establish that the [AAO'sl decision was based on an incorrect application of law or Service 
policy." 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(2). 
The AAO mher found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the beneficiary's duties, 
such to show that he will be managing an essential function rather than performing it himself. Counsel failed to 
address this finding. 
The present motion is limited to addressing issues raised by the director. Yet, the AAO's dismissal of the 
petitioner's appeal was the last decision in this proceeding. The petitioner must establish that the AAO's decision 
"was based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy" in order for the present motion to be granted. 
8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(2). The petitioner has failed to meet this burden. 
It is further noted that counsel cited a single unpublished AAO decision in support of his assertions. While the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all CIS employees in 
the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Thus, counsel has neither stated sufficient reasons for reconsideration nor supported his assertions with 
pertinent precedent decisions, such to establish that the AAOfs decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or Service policy. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(2). Accordingly, the motion to reconsider will not be granted. 
It is fkrther noted that the petitioner failed to properly file the present motion within the permitted 30-day period. 
The petitioner mailed the motion to the AAO within 30 days of the AAO's prior decision, yet the regulation at 
8 C.F.R 5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(E) provides that the motion should have been filed with the Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) Texas Service Center. The motion was not received by the Texas Service Center 
until May 17,2004, approximately two weeks after the due date. 
Finally, it should be noted for the record that, unless CIS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion to reopen or 
reconsider does not stay the execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set departure date. 
8 C.F.R. g 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. $ 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj103.5(a)(4) states that "[a] motion that 
does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the 
proceedings will not be reopened, and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.