dismissed L-1A Case: Jewelry

US. Department of Homeland Security 
mi dm deleted to 
U S Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdmrnrstratrve Appeals, MS 2090 
*vent c1ea.y unw-ted 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invmjon of nerwral x13,qc ' 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PITBLIC COPY 
FILE: EAC 07 258 5 1026 
 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: 
b4OV 18 2009 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for the 
specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the ofice that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
erry Rhew 
hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 258 5 1026 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before the AAO on a 
motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner, a jewelry business, filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as 
an L-1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner has employed the beneficiary as its 
president since November 2005 and now seeks to extend his employment for two additional years. 
The director denied the petition on December 21, 2007, 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 petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on January 22, 2008. Counsel for the petitioner indicated on 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that "additional documentations and explanations" would be 
submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal in a decision dated January 
30, 2009, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). In dismissing the appeal, the AAO noted 
that the petitioner failed to submit a brief or additional evidence to the AAO in support of the appeal within 
30 days, and had not otherwise identified specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on 
the part of the director. 
On July 2, 2008, prior to the adjudicating the appeal, the AAO sent a facsimile to counsel. The AAO 
requested that counsel send a copy of the brief and additional evidence to the AAO within five business days, 
along with evidence of the date the materials were originally filed with the AAO. 
The AAO acknowledged that counsel faxed a six-page brief to the AAO on July 8,2008, but noted that, while 
the brief was dated February 10, 2008, counsel did not submit any evidence that this brief was previously 
submitted to the AAO. The AAO further noted that the brief referred twice to a U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) decision dated April 8,2008, and therefore appeared to have been prepared in 
whole or in part, subsequent to February 10,2008. 
Counsel for the petitioner filed the instant motion to reopen or reconsider on February 17, 2009. 
 In an 
accompanying statement dated February 12,2009, counsel states: 
[Tlhe Appeals Department had denied the appeal on the grounds that AAO will not consider the 
fax by the counsel on July 8' 2008 because the consul [sic] had by mistake put the date of denial 
as April 8,2008 and not December 2 1,2007. 
It was honest typo error by the consul [sic] as he must have been referring to some other matter, 
which has been denied April 8,2008 as there was case pertaining to the Petitioner or beneficiary 
with regard to that date. The USCIS should consider this as typo error and consider the draft 
send by the consul [sic]. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed 
EAC 07 258 5 1026 
Page 3 
the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, 
for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the 
United States. In addition, 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $5 103.5(a)(l)(iii) lists the filing requirements for motions to reopen and 
motions to reconsider. Section 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) requires that motions be "[alccompanied by a statement 
about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial 
proceeding." In this matter, the motion does not contain the statement required by 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4) states that a motion which does not meet 
applicable requirements must be dismissed. Therefore, because the instant motion did not meet the 
applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must be dismissed for this reason. 
Furthermore, upon review, the AAO will dismiss the motion for failing to meet the applicable 
requirements for motions to reopen set forth in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2). "[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." Id. In this matter, counsel offers no new evidence on motion. The unsupported 
statements of counsel in a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. 
See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1 984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 
(BIA 1980). 
Accordingly, the motion does not meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reopen and must be 
dismissed for that reason. 
Finally, the AAO will dismiss the motion for failing to meet the applicable requirements for motions to 
reconsider set forth in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). This regulation states, 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 [U.S.Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS)] policy." Id. In this matter, counsel fails to cite to any precedent decisions establishing 
that the AAO's decision not to consider a late-filed brief, was based on an incorrect application of law or 
policy. 
To the contrary, the AAO clearly explained that the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(vi) permit an 
affected party to file a brief with the Form I-290B. The AAO may grant an affected party additional time to 
file a brief. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii). Consistent with the discretion described in See 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.3(a)(2)(vii), the Form I-290B extends to all appellants the option of submitting a brief andlor additional 
evidence to the AAO within 30 days. However, the regulations provided that any extensions of time greater 
than 30 days require a showing of "good cause." In this matter, the record was devoid of evidence of "good 
cause" supporting the filing of a brief almost six months after filing the appeal, especially in light of counsel's 
apparent attempt to mislead the AAO on the date the brief was initially submitted. 
On motion, counsel asserts that the reference to a decision dated April 8, 2008 in a brief dated February 10, 
2008, was an "honest typo," and that he must have been referring to some other matter involving the same 
EAC 07 25 8 5 1026 
Page 4 
parties. However, counsel has provided no reasonable explanation for a reference to an April 2008 decision 
in a brief that was ostensibly written in February 2008. Furthermore, the record remains devoid of evidence 
that counsel actually submitted the brief to the AAO within 30 days of filing the Form I-290B. Accordingly, 
the AAO will not reconsider its decision to reject the late-filed brief. The regulations do not allow a petitioner 
an open-ended or indefinite period in which to supplement an appeal once it has been filed. 
As such, the motion does not meet the applicable requirements and must be dismissed. 
 8 C.F.R. fj 
103.5(a)(4). 
Motions for the reopening or reconsideration 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. See INS v. 
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking 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 will be dismissed. 
Finally, it should be noted for the record that, unless USCIS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion does not 
stay the execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set departure date. 8 C.F.R. 5 
103S(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. 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.