dismissed L-1A Case: Not Specified

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
idCqtifyzq:; c.:Lz lJt,! ,L. :i L-) 
U S Cltlzensh~p and Imm~grat~on Services 
Office ofAdmrn~stratrve Appeals, MS 2090 
preveni c!ex\/ un~d!-~.'n~ ed 
 Wash~ngton, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of pers~~d ~~v~cY 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: EAC 07 262 5 1970 
 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 JUL 17 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 10 1(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 office 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 or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
JW. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 262 5 1970 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa, and the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) summarily dismissed the petitioner's subsequent appeal. The matter is 
before the AAO on a motion to reopen or reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the beneficiary's employment as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L). The director denied the petition on March 18, 2008 concluding that 
the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's proposed position in the United States would be in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Counsel for the petitioner timely filed an I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the AAO on April 21, 
2008, and indicated that a brief andlor additional evidence in support of the appeal would be submitted within 
30 days. On September 3, 2008, the AAO advised counsel that no additional brief and/or evidence had been 
submitted and provided counsel an opportunity to submit copies of any timely filed documentation. Counsel 
did not reply to the AAO's correspondence and the record was considered complete. Accordingly, the AAO 
summarily dismissed the appeal on October 2, 2008 based on the petitioner's failure to identify specifically 
any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Counsel for the petitioner filed the instant motion on October 23, 2008. In support of the motion, counsel 
submits a copy of the AAO's decision, a copy of the Service Center director's decision, and a "copy of draft of 
the Appeal." The "draft of the Appeal" is a brief dated May 10, 2008. Counsel does not provide evidence 
that the brief was previously submitted to the AAO in support of the appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) states, 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3) states, in pertinent part: 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4) states, in pertinent part, that a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed. 
In the instant case, the petitioner's motion does not contain any new facts and is unsupported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the AAO's decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. Absent evidence that the petitioner or counsel timely 
filed a brief in support of the appeal, the AAO's decision to summarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.3(a)(l)(v) was correct. Counsel has not articulated any grounds for the reopening or reconsideration of 
EAC 07 262 5 1970 
Page 3 
the AAO's decision dated October 2, 2008. Therefore, the AAO's decision will not be disturbed and the 
motion will be dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(4). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought rests solely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.