dismissed L-1A Case: Silicon Chip Design

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
File: WAC 07 23 1 50471 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 0 3 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(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. 
-dp 
&-' 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 07 23 1 50471 
' Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary 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, a Delaware corporation, is described as a silicon chip design 
company. The petitioner states that it is the parent company of the beneficiary's foreign employer, Silicon 
Design Solutions Vietnam. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its Digital IC Design Manager 
for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2) requires an affected party to file the complete appeal within 30 days 
after service of the decision, or, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5a(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 April 9, 
2008. Counsel for the petitioner filed an appeal with the California Service Center on Tuesday, May 20, 
2008,41 days after the decision was served. 
Neither the Act nor the pertinent regulations grant the AAO authority to extend the 33-day time limit for 
filing an appeal. Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected on these grounds pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. $ 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 5 
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 decision to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or [Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) policy." Id. Here, 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 based on an incorrect 
application of law or CIS policy.' 
1 
 Finally, it is noted that the brief submitted to the MO on August 20,2008 in response to the AAO's August 
18,2008 facsimile request was first inappropriately sent to the California Service Center on or about June 25, 
2008. The AAO was not sent a copy of these documents within 30 days of the appeal as required by the Form 
' WAC 07 23 1 50471 
' Page 3 
The untimely appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
Therefore, there is no requirement to treat the appeal as a motion under 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(Z). 
As the appeal was untimely filed, the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
I-290B and 8 C.F.R. 4 103.3(a)(2)(viii). Therefore, the AAO would not have considered the brief in its 
adjudication of the appeal because it was not properly filed, and the AAO would be obligated to summarily 
dismiss the current appeal for this reason if the appeal were not being rejected.