dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate

U.S. Department of Hornel;and Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave.. N.U'., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
'Y drtl 
~~~~~L . *4;ir?j irre-, U. S. citizenship 
~-ofperscnoal and Immigraticln 
PUBLIC C 
FILE: SRC 02 064 50844 Ofice: TEXAS SERVICE CENTE $ ~zte: 
and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(15)(L) 1 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
I 
MSTRUCTIONS: 1 
This is the decision ofthe Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All cuments have been rett~rned to 
the ofice that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be 
I-- - .-L-(' L. ~bbert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Ofice 
SRC 02 064 50844 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: On November 13, 2001 the Director, Texas Service Center, denied the initial petition (with 
receipt number SRCOl19150332), which sought to extend the beneficiary's employment for a nonimmigrant 
visa. On December 19, 2001 the petitioner filed another petition (with raceipt number SRC0206450844) to 
extend the beneficiary's employment for a nonimmigrant visa. On February 15, 2002 the director denied that 
petition. On July 9,2003 the petitioner filed a motion to reopen the director's denial of the second petition to 
extend the beneficiary's employment. On July 10, 2003 the director dismissed the petitioner's motion and 
upheld the decision denying the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on certification. The decision of the director will be affirmed, and the second petition to (extend the 
beneficiary's employment will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its general manager 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 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of 
Texas. It claims to be a subsidiary ofAllied Estate, located in Pakistan. The beneficiary was initially granted 
a one-year period of stay to open a new ofice in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend the 
beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition stating that the petitioner is not eligibl~ for an extension as a result of 
Citizenship and Immigration Services' (CIS) denial of the initial petition to extend the beneficiary's 
employment.' The director specifically cited 8 C.F.R. 5 214.1(~)(4). which precludes approval of an 
extension of stay in a case where the applicant failed to maintain status or where such status expired prior to 
filing of the petition. 
On July 9, 2003 the petitioner obtained new counsel and filed a motion to reopen stating that the petitioner 
never received the decision, dated February 15,2002, in which the second petition to extend the beneficiary's 
employment was denied. Counsel resubmits many of the previously submitted documents, as well as a 
statement suggesting that the beneficiary was entirely unaware of the November 13, 2001 denial of the initial 
petition to extend the beneficiary's period of employment. Counsel also fails to acknowledge that the petition 
that is at issue in the instant matter was the second petition of its kind, filed after the first extension petition 
was denied.' 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 I lOl(a)(l5)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifj/ing organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render 
his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is m,~nagerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
I The record does not indicate that the petitioner filed either a motion or a Form I-290B appealing thc: director's 
November 13,2001 denial of the initial petition to extend the beneficiary's employment. 
7 
The AAO acknowledges that the primary address listed in the February 15, 2002 denial notice was that of the 
petitioner's counsel of record. Although the petitioner retained different counsel since the date the second extension 
petition was filed, there is no explanation as to why that denial was not received. 
SRC 02 064 50844 
Page 3 
In the instant case, the petitioner filed not one, but, two petitions to extend the beneficiary's employment. The 
record contains a letter, dated December 17, 2001, from the petitioner's first counsel acknowledging denial 
of the initial petition to extend the beneficiary's employment. Counsel stated that since the time the petition 
was denied, the petitioner had "reorganized and believes it will now qualify for an extension." The AAO 
notes that the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa 
petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible urtder a new 
set of facts. Matter ofMichelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). In the instant case, counsel 
apparently sought to circumvent this established precedent by filing a new petition after the initial extension 
petition was denied and the beneficiary's lawful period of stay had expired. Pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.1(~)(4) the beneficiary's right to seek an extension of status was entirely dependenl upon the 
outcome of the petitioner's filing the petition to extend the beneficiary's employment in the United States. In 
light of the fact that the initial petition for this benefit was denied, the petitioner's only recourse was to either 
file an appeal pursuant to the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3 or to file a motion pursuant to the reg~llations at 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.5, assuming the petitioner's particular set of facts meet the requirements of a motion to reopen 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(3). In the instant case, the 
petitioner did not appeal with the AAO or file a motion with the Texas Service Center. Therefore, the director 
properly denied the petitioner's second petition for an extension of the beneficiary's employment. Since the 
petitioner's eligibility had been previously considered under the relevant set of facts at the time that extension 
petition was filed, there was no need to revisit this issue in an improperly filed petition. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The director's decision dated February 15, 2002, denying the petition, will be upheld.