dismissed L-1A Case: Management

"dentifyingdata dele~ ~~
1 1 unwarran-­preventclear Y na\pdvaq
invasionof perso
PUBLICC(JY ~
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: WAC 05 113 53915 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER
'1
Date: S[p f 1 2.007
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
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)
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.
);d<i£~51Robert P.le::~ Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscls.gov
WAC 05 113 53915
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa, and the
petitioner filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded it to the
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for review. The AAO dismissed the appeal, and the matter is now
before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The motion will be rejected as untimely filed. 8 C.F.R. §§
103.5(a)(l )(i), 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(A), and 103.5(a)(4).
In order to properly file a motion to reconsider or reopen, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) provides
that the affected party must file the motion within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider.
If the decision was mailed, the motion must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(b). In accordance
with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i), an application received in a Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) office
shall be stamped to show the time and date of actual receipt, if it is properly signed, executed, and
accompanied by the correct fee. For calculating the date of filing, the motion shall be regarded as properly
filed on the date that it is so stamped by the service center or district office.
The record indicates that the AAO issued its decision on October 4, 2006. According to the date stamp on the
motion to reopen, it was received by CIS on February 2, 2007, approximately four months after the decision
was issued. The petitioner has presented no evidence that the delay was reasonable and beyond the control of
the petitioner. Accordingly, the motion was untimely filed.
In addition, the motion contains a claim that the petitioner's prior counsel provided ineffective assistance
because he failed to raise the issue of whether the beneficiary was acting as a function manager on appeal, and
additionally failed to file a timely motion to reopen after the AAO' s dismissal of the appeal. Any appeal or
motion based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires: (1) that the claim be supported by an
affidavit of the allegedly aggrieved respondent setting forth in detail the agreement that was entered into with
counsel with respect to the actions to be taken and what representations counsel did or did not make to the
respondent in this regard, (2) that counsel whose integrity or competence is being impugned be informed of
the allegations leveled against him and be given an opportunity to respond, and (3) that the appeal or motion
reflect whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities with respect to any
violation of counsel's ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not. Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec.
637 (BIA 1988), aff'd, 857 F.2d 10 (Ist Cir. 1988). The petitioner has failed to satisfy these requirements
with regard to its claim of ineffective assistance of former counsel.
As the motion was untimely and improperly filed, the motion must be rejected.
ORDER: The motion is rejected.