dismissed L-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
mc COPY 
File: LIN 02 141 5 13 14 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 0 1 2m 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
7~-7&? Robert P. Wieman r ctor 
lp 
dministrative Appeals Office 
LIN 02 141 51314 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
petitioner filed a subsequent appeal. The director determined that the appeal was not filed in a timely manner. 
The director rejected the appeal without rendering a decision. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion 
to reconsider. The motion will be rejected. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 
10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(lS)(L). 
The director denied the petition on October 3, 2002. On November 29, 2002, counsel for the petitioner filed 
an appeal seeking review of the director's decision. After reviewing the record, the director rejected the 
appeal as the appeal had not been filed in a timely manner. Any appeal that is not filed within the time 
allowed must be rejected as improperly filed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l). The director also determined 
that the untimely appeal did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. See 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v)(B)(2); see also 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5. The director found that "the appeal neither provides 
new evidence nor provides precedent decisions to consider." 
The petitioner has now filed a motion seeking to reopen the appeal that was rejected as untimely filed. 
Counsel asserts that "[dlue to previous counsel's brief being submitted to the Washington, D.C. office, your 
service Center was not initially aware of the supporting statement and evidence." However, as the appeal was 
rejected by the director, there is no decision on the part of the AAO that may be reopened in this proceeding. 
According to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(ii), jurisdiction over a motion resides in the official who made the latest 
decision in the proceeding. The AAO did not enter a decision on this matter. Because the disputed decision 
was rendered by the director, the AAO has no jurisdiction over this motion and the motion must be rejected. 
ORDER: The motion is rejected.