dismissed L-1A Case: Safe Sales

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF QNNS- (USA) INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY I 0, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner. which sells safes, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its 
president and chief executive oflicer under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classi lication for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act section IO!(a)(IS)(L), 8 U.S.C. § I!Ol(a)(IS)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition and we dismissed the subsequent 
appeal. We denied the Petitioner's motion to reopen and motion to reconsider finding the motions 
were tiled untimely. The matter is. now before us again on a motion to reopen and a motion to 
reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (I) state the new !~Jets to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding: and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § !03.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that 
satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
For the purposes of this motion, the scope of our review is limited tci the latest decision, which was our 
decision denying the petitioner's motion to reopen and motion to reconsider as untimely. Therefore, 
the issue in this matter is whether we properly denied the Petitioner's motions as untimely. On 
motion, the Petitioner assel1s that an initial a!!empt to file the combined motions was rejected due to a 
clerical error and was scheduled tor delivery on January 16, 2018 within the tiling deadline. Therefore, 
the Petitioner claims we erred in not finding the delay in tiling reasonable and beyond the Petitioner's 
control: 
A review of the record confirms that our denial of the combined motions was not in error. The 
regulations require a motion be filed within 33 calendar days of the date that the unfavorable 
decision was served by mail. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(l)(i); 103.8(b). The filing date is the day USCIS 
receives the motion at the designated tiling location, not the date the Petitioner mailed the motion or 
the date of scheduled delivery. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(a)(7)(i). On December 12, 20!7, we dismissed the 
Petitioner's appeal ·and served the unt~tvorable decision by mail. The decision stated that the 
Petitioner may file a motion within 33 days. USCIS received an improperly tiled motion that was 
rejected on January 17, 2018, 36 days after the service date of the unf~tvorable decision. We then 
received the properly tiled motion on February 5, 2018, which is 55 days alier the service date of the 
Mauer ofQNNS- (USA) Inc. 
unfavorable decision. We do not lind that the delay in tiling was reasonable or beyond the control of 
the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner has not provided new evidence on motion to establish that it had timely submitted the 
prior motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. Nor has the Petitioner stated that our decision to 
deny the motions was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Accordingly, the combined 
motion will be denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Mauer ofQNNS- (USA) Inc .. lD# 1643011 (AAO May 10, 2018) 
2