dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

identttylng datz deleted to 
prevent cl tan, gn warranted 
invasion of pe~nal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 03 244 50 190 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 NOV O 3 lu 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
Robeh P. ~iem%nn, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 244 50190 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the subsequently filed appeal and affirmed the director's 
decision to deny the petition. On June 22, 2005, counsel to the petitioner filed a Form I-290B purporting to 
appeal the AAO's decision to the AAO. As the regulations do not provide for an appeal of an AAO decision, 
the second appeal will be treated as a motion to reopen and reconsider the matter in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
tj 103.5. The motion will be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $5 103.5(a)(2), 103.5(a)(3), and 103.5(a)(4). 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seelung to extend its authorization to employ the 
beneficiary as an L-IA nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(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 under the laws of the State of California and is allegedly engaged in international trade. 
On May 6, 2004, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. On June 3, 
2004, the petitioner filed an appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal on June 1, 2005. On June 22, 2005, the 
petitioner filed a Form I-290B purporting to appeal the AAO's decision. As explained above, this appeal will 
be treated as a motion to reopen and reconsider the AAO's decision. On the Form I-290B, counsel to the 
petitioner asserts that "[wle believe that the beneficiary has been and will be performing services in a 
managerial or executive capacity." Counsel further states that a brief or evidence would be submitted to the 
AAO within 30 days. As of this date, the AAO has received nothing further and the record will be considered 
complete.' 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof 
in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Upon review, the AAO will dismiss the motion to reopen and reconsider. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(2) state, in pertinent part, that "[a] motion to reopen must state the new 
facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
'On October 12, 2006, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief had 
ever been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief and/or additional 
evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. As of the date of this 
decision, the AAO has received no response from counsel or the petitioner. 
WAC 03 244 50190 
Page 3 
evidence." Based on the plain meaning of "new," a new fact is found to be evidence that was not available and 
could not have been discovered or presented in the previous proceeding.2 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(3) state, in pertinent part, that "[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 [Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] policy." 
As noted above, only a single statement was submitted in support of the motion. As such, there is no evidence 
submitted on motion that may be considered "new" under 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) and that could be considered a 
proper basis for a motion to reopen. Likewise, the petitioner has not stated any reasons for reconsideration. 
Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as petitions for 
rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. liVS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 3 14, 
323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seelang to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy 
burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the movant has not met that burden. The 
motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
Finally, it should be noted for the record that, unless CIS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion to reopen does 
not stay the execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set departure date. 8 C.F.R. 9 
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. 9 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Title 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(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 or reconsidered, and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be 
disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed. 
*The word "new" is defined as "1. having existed or been made for only a short time . . .3. Just discovered, found, 
or learned <new evidence> . . . ." WEBSTER'S I1 NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 792 (1984)(emphasis 
in orignal).