dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clczil unwarranted 
invasion of peraaoJ piivey 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
"1 
File: WAC 03 069 50055 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 0 5 
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) 
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. 
, 
-- 
.- ; & 
I' 
~obf. Wiernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 069 50055 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: ~h'e 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. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The AAO will 
dismiss the motion. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend its authorization to employ the 
beneficiary as an L-1A 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 the business of international 
trade. 
 The petitioner claims a qualifying relationship with 
Corporation of Guangdong, China. 
On March 18, 2003, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary had been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial 
or executive capacity. On April 18, 2003, the petitioner filed an appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal on 
February 7, 2005. On March 4, 2005, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen the AAO's decision. On the 
Form I-290B appeal form, counsel to the petitioner asserts that "[wle believe that the beneficiary has been and 
will be performing managerial duties." 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 10 1(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. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(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 
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 
1 
 On July 24,2006, 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 andlor 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. 
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 
(1 984)(emphasis in orignal). 
WAC 03 069 50055 
Page 3 
As noted above, only a single statement was submitted in support of the motion to reopen. As such, there is no 
evidence submitted on motion that may be considered "new" under 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(2) and that could be 
considered a proper basis for a motion to reopen. 
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. IiVS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 
323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seektng to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy 
burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 1 10. 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 Citizenship and Immigration Services 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Title 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(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, and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.