dismissed L-1A Case: Unknown

I 
 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
*"* \ 
20 Masachusetts Ave , N W , Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
identifjhg data ddeted to 
pevmt clearly lmwa~anted 
t.rv&ykof pe~nal privac: 
i 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC 05 068 50379 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: )(W ; '&UO 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(1)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101 (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. 
I e Robert P. Wiema , Chief 
b 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 068 50379 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen. The director determined that the motion was not filed in a 
timely manner and dismissed thk motion without reridering a decision on its merits. The matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L). 
The director denied the petition on March 28, 2005. In order to properly file a motion, the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(i) provides-that the affected party must file the appeal within 30 days after service of the 
unfavorable decision, except that failure to file before this period expires may be excused in the discretion of 
the Service where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and was beyond the control of the 
applicant or petitioner. If the decision was mailed, the motion must be filed within 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.5a(b). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(A) requires that a motion be in writing and signed by 
the affected party or the attorney or representative of record, if any. 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i) an application received in a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) office shall be stamped to show the time and date of actual receipt, if it is properly signed, 
executed , and accompanied by the correct fee. For calculating the date of filing the appeal shall be regarded 
as properly filed on the date it is so stamped by the service center or district office. In this case, the motion 
was initially received on May 2, 2005; however, the date stamp has been crossed out, as the motion was not 
signed by counsel. The motion was therefore properly rejected and returned to counsel. 
The date stamp on the motion to re-open indicates that the motion was received as properly filed on May 12, 
2005, or 45 days after the issuance of the director's notice of decision. Accordingly, on June 15, 2005, the 
director dismissed the motion as untimely filed, without rendering a decision on the merits of the case. 
The petitioner has now filed an appeal asserting that the director improperly dismissed the motion as untimely 
filed. On, appeal, counsel provides documentary evidence to establish that the motion was in fact received by 
the service center on May 2, 2005, prior to the expiration of the 33 days allowed by regulation. Counsel 
disputes the director's statement that the motion was received on May 12, 2005. 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the director properly rejected the motion as untimely filed. While it has 
been established that the motion to reopen was received at the service center on May 2, 2005, for the reasons 
discussed above, the motion was'not properly filed until May 12,2005. Counsel fails to acknowledge that the 
motion was initially rejected by the service center and returned to counsel in order to be signed by her in 
accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(A). The director had sole discretion to excuse the 
petitioner's failure to file within the required time period, and chose not to do so. 
As the record shows that the motion to reopen the petition was properly dismissed by the director as untimely 
filed, the appeal will be dismissed. The petitioner failed to file a motion or appeal of the director's March 28, 
SRC 05 068 50379 
Page 3 
2005 decision within the required time period, thus the merits of the petition need not and will not be 
discussed herein. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.