dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 07 271 53202 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AU6 8 9 2008 
Petition: 
 Petition for a NoniInmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 1 0 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
%/ 
Robert P . Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 07 271 53202 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the California Service Center denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l). 
The petitioner is a California corporation allegedly engaged in the real estate business.' The petitioner seeks 
to employ the beneficiary as its regional manager to open a new office as an L-1A nonirnmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 1 0 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that it secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2) requires an affected party to file the complete appeal with 30 days after 
service of the decision, or, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5a(b), within 33 days if the decision was served by 
mail. The record indicates that the decision of the director was sent to the petitioner on December 28, 2007.~ 
Counsel to the petitioner filed an appeal with the California Service Center on Friday, February 1, 2008, 35 days 
after the decision was served. Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected on these grounds 
pursuant to 8 C .F .R. $ 1 03.3 (a)(2)(v)(B)(l). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 8 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.5(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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 
In this matter, it is noted that the appeal does not meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reopen or 
reconsider. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a). This regulation 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." Id. Furthermore, "[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 [Citizenship and Immigration Se~ces (CIS)] policy." Id. In this matter, the petitioner offers no 
"new" evidence, which could not have been presented in the initial proceeding. Likewise, counsel fails to cite 
to any pertinent precedent decisions establishing that the director's decision was an incorrect application of law or 
CIS policy. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
1 
It is noted that, according to the corporate records of the State of California, the petitioner's corporate name is 
actually 2 T.E.N. Corp. 
'~lthough counsel submits a copy of an envelope fiom Citizenship and Immigration Services bearing a 
postmark of December 31, 2007 as evidence that the instant appeal was timely filed within 33 days of that 
date, the record is devoid of evidence establishing that this envelope contained the director's December 28, 
2007 decision. It is noted that the record consistently indicates that the decision was served by first class mail 
on December 28, 2007. Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that it is more likely than not that 
the decision was mailed on December 3 1,2007.