dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5646069 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV. 20, 2019 
The Petitioner is a "new office" 1 that intends to renovate and sell homes. It seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary under the L- lA nonimmigrant classification as executive director . 2 See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L) , 8 U.S .C. § l 10l(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualifying work abroad in an executive or 
managerial capacity . We summarily dismissed the company's appeal. 
The matter is before us again on the Petitioner's motion to reopen . The Petitioner submits additional 
evidence and requests more time to obtain further documentation. 
Upon review , we will dismiss the motion . 
I. MOTION CRITERIA 
A motion to reopen must state new facts , supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2) . If a motion meets these requirements and overcomes the denial grounds of the prior 
decision, we may grant the filing. 
II. THE PETITIONER'S MOTION 
We found that the Petitioner's appeal did not allege an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) (requiring summary dismissal of an appeal that does not identify 
its legal or factual basis) . The appeal indicated that the Petitioner would submit a written brief or 
additional evidence within 30 days of the filing. But we did not receive any submission from the 
company during that period . 
1 The term "new office" means an organization that has conducted business in the United States for less than a year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(F). 
2 We refer to the offered position by its title listed on the Form I-129. In a letter, the Petitioner identified the job as 
"executive officer." 
On motion, the Petitioner submits an affidavit from the Beneficiary and copies of U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) notices to him and his family. The notices indicate USCIS' 
approval of applications to extend the nonimmigrant visa status of him and his family in the United 
States as visitors. This new evidence, however, does not overcome the grounds of our appellate 
dismissal. The evidence does not address the defects in the company's appeal. 
The Beneficiary's affidavit states that, after the petition's denial, the Petitioner requested additional 
documentary evidence from its parent company in Venezuela regarding the nature of the 
Beneficiary's foreign experience. The affidavit states that, as of the motion's filing, the Beneficiary, 
who still remains in the United States, had not yet received the requested evidence. The Beneficiary 
blamed the delay on "the complicated situation that has arisen in Venezuela regarding logistic 
services, lack of electricity and low access to the internet." The Beneficiary stated that documents 
had been sent to him through a Venezuelan courier company and that he expected to receive them 
soon. The Petitioner requested an additional 30 days to submit the anticipated evidence. 
Since the motion's filing more than seven months ago, however, this office has not received any 
further submissions from the Petitioner. Even if the company had sent us additional documentation, 
Department of Homeland Security regulations do not allow a movant seeking to reopen a proceeding 
to submit additional evidence after the motion's initial filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 ( containing rules 
governing the filings of motions). We therefore could not have granted the Petitioner's request for 
additional time, nor considered any evidence submitted after the motion's filing. 
The Beneficiary's affidavit also asserts that the Petitioner "was a victim of migratory fraud." The 
affidavit states that the petition's preparer misrepresented herself to the company as an attorney. The 
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the proposed 
worksite in this matter, has suggested that poor legal performances by people who misrepresented 
themselves as attorneys can support claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Montano 
Cisneros v. US. Atty Gen., 513 F.3d 1224, 1227 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that the Board of 
Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen involving a claim of 
faulty legal advice by a non-attorney). In cases involving claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, 
however, the Eleventh Circuit requires substantial compliance with certain procedural safeguards 
and proof that poor legal performances prejudiced claimants. See Dakcme v. US. Att'y Gen., 
371 F.3d 771, 775 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988)). 
Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it complied with the Lozada safeguards or that the 
preparer's performance prejudiced it. We therefore cannot consider the claim. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's approval notice establishes his qualifications to 
change his nonimmigrant status from visitor to L-lA worker as the petition requested. The 
Petitioner contends that USCIS denied the change-of-status request because, as of the petition's 
filing, the Beneficiary purportedly lacked valid nonimmigrant status. 3 "There is no appeal," 
however, from a change-of-status denial. 8 C.F.R. § 248.3(g). We therefore lack authority to review 
that portion of the Director's decision. 
3 The record indicates that, as of the petition's filing, the Beneficiary's application to extend his visitor's visa status was 
pending. 
2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence on motion does not establish that we summarily dismissed the Petitioner's appeal in 
error. We will therefore affirm our prior decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3