dismissed L-1A Case: Laser Equipment

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, Rm. A3M2,425 I Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
1 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Ofice 
DISCUSSION: The Acting Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. 
The matter came before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal, which was dismissed in a 
decision dated April 22,2003. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen. The motion will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its "executive" as an L- 
1A nonimrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of 
California and claims to of trading and distributing laser equipment. It indicates 
that it is a subsidiary ocated in Korea. The petitioner seeks to extend the 
beneficiary's stay. 
The actmg director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the petitioner stated that its staff is needed to assist the foreign entity, which results in their 
frequent and prolonged trips to Korea. The petitioner also explained that its employees receive benefits from 
the Korean company for the services they provide to that company. 
On motion to reopen, the petitioner provides a confusing statement seemingly explaining that the petitioner 
has had difficulty progressing beyond the initial stages of development. The petitioner also reiterates the 
employee-sharing agreement it apparently has with the Korean entity. 
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. 
In the instant case, the petitioner's motion consists of a confusing statement, the petitioner's organizational 
chart, the beneficiary's 2001 tax return, the first page of the petitioner's 2001 tax return, and evidence of a 
fund transfer. None of the petitioner's submissions address the AAO's primary reason for dismissing the 
appeal, which was based on the beneficiary's duties. More importantly, the submissions provided on motion 
do not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
pethoner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, the mtioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.