dismissed L-1A Case: Manufacturing

identifyiig data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S, Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
 1 
Washington, DC 20529 +<*, 
, U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Smices 
b-7 
File: EAC 03 150 53620 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
-- 
0[3f 232008 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 llOl(a)(lS)(L) 
IN 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. 
__+------ 
Robert P 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 150 53620 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: On July 17,2003, the Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa 
petition. The petitioner appealed this denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), and, on May 4, 
2005, the AAO dismissed the appeal. On June 6, 2005, the Vermont Service Center received a letter dated 
May 2, 2005 from Lolita J. Semidey purporting to move for reconsideration of the AAO's decision. The 
motion will be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $9 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(A) and (D), and 9 103.5(a)(4). 
The petitioner is a Puerto Rico corporation allegedly engaged in the manufacture and sale of vertical blinds. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager to open a new office in the United 
States as an L- 1 A nonirnmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
~mmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition 
concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that (1) the beneficiary has been employed abroad primarily 
in a managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year. The AAO subsequently dismissed the appeal. 
The Form G-28, Entry of Appearance as Att 
submitted for the record, entered the appearance 
the petitioner. ~hiles identified in the Form G-28 as the president of the board of directors, the 
petitioner is not identified in the Form G-28 as the party being represented by counsel in this proceeding. In 
view of the above, counsel is only authorized to represent and act on behalf of-ot the petitioner. 
The letter purporting to serve as a motion to reconsider was signed by counsel towtizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) regulations only permit an "affected party," or a representative acting on an 
affected $arty's behaIf, to file a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l )(%)(A) 
affected party in this proceeding. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(a)(3) and 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). 
counsel is not authorized to file a motion, and the motion must be dismissed for this reason. 8 C.F.R. $ 
103.5(a)(4).' 
Moreover, the letter purporting to serve as a motion to reconsider was addressed to the Vermont Service 
Center. CIS regulations specifically require that motions to reconsider be addressed to the official having 
jurisdiction. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(D). In this case, the official having jurisdiction is the AAO, not the 
Vermont Service Center, since the AAO is the official who made the latest decision in the proceeding. 8 
C.F.R. 4 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 
 Therefore, the motion must also be dismissed for this reason. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.5(a)(4). 
Finally, CIS regulations require that motions to reconsider (1) be supported by pertinent precedent decisions 
establishing that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or CIS policy; and (2) must 
1 
It is acknowledged that the AAO adjudicated the underlying appeal on May 4,2005 even though the Form I- 
290B giving rise to that appeal was signed by counsel to Mr. Luque. The AAO, however, is not obligated to 
repeat this error here. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Corn. 
1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding 
precedent. Sussex Engr. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 
1008 (1988). 
EAC 03 150 53620 
Page 3 
establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(3). In this matter, the letter purporting to move for reconsideration is not supported 
by any precedent establishing that there was an error of law and does not establish that the decision was 
contrary to the evidence in the record. Therefore, as the motion fails to meet the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider, the motion must also be dismissed for this reason. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(4). 
As the motion did not meet the applicable requirements, it will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.