dismissed L-1A Case: Management Consulting

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PtmLICCOPY 
DATE: MAY 1 7 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Porm 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vennont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will reject the appeal as untimely 
filed. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary under section 101(a)(l5)(L) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(l5)(L) as an intracompany transferee 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner, a Florida corporation, states that it intends to 
operate a management consulting business in the United States. It claims to be a subsidiary of the 
beneficiary's last foreign employer, , located in Bangladesh. The petitioner seeks to employ 
the beneficiary as the vice president of its new office in the United States for a period of one year. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the U.S. entity 
would support a managerial or executive position within one year; and (2) that the petitioner had secured 
sufficient physical premises to house the new office. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the affected party 
must file the complete appeal with the office where the unfavorable decision was made within 30 days after 
service of the unfavorable decision. If the decision was mailed, the appeal 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 US 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 appeal 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 director issued the adverse decision on March 5, 2009. It is noted that the 
director properly gave notice to the petitioner that it had 33 days to file the appeal. The petitioner filed the 
appeal with the Vermont Service Center on April 8, 2009, 34 days after the director's decision was issued. 
Accordingly, the appeal was untimely filed and will be rejected. Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations 
grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time limit for filing an appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a 
motion to reopen as described in 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.5(a)(3), the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decision must be made on the merits of the case. 
The official having jurisdiction over a motion is the official who made the last decision in the proceeding, in 
this case, the service center director. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1 )(ii). 
It is noted that the appeal does not meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a). The instant appeal consists of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, on which 
counsel indicated that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As 
of this date, no brief or evidence has been submitted. The record also contains a cover letter dated April 7, 
2009, in which counsel stated that he was attaching a "Memorandum in Support of I-290B with corresponding 
Page 3 
Exhibits" as well as the minutes from the petitioner's board meeting. Upon careful review of the record, the 
only document attached was the minutes of the U.S. company's board meeting held on November 8,2008, in 
which the directors resolved that the beneficiary is authorized to conduct banking transactions on behalf of the 
company. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(2). 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 Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on 
an application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 c.F.R. § 103.S(a)(3). A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(4). 
Here, the petitioner offers no "new" evidence, which could not have been presented in the initial proceeding. 
Likewise, the petitioner fails to cite to any pertinent precedent decisions establishing that the director's 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. 
The untimely appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
Therefore, there is no requirement to treat the appeal as a motion under 8 c.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2). 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected pursuant to 8 c.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.