dismissed L-1A Case: Unknown

tJ.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Avenue. N.W. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20520 
PUBLIC COPY 
md8tadadrdio 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Flle: EAC 03 21 1 52758 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: sE? 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 LOl(a)(lS)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
~obed Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Off~ce 
EAC 03 2 1 1 5275 8 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the application to extend the beneficiary's 
period of stay in nonimmigrant status. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner seeks to change the beneficiary's status from specialized knowledge worker (L-IB) to manager 
or executive (L-IA) and extend her period of stay as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to 9 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Cj 1101(a)(15)(L). The beneficiary's period of 
stay as an L-1B expired on September 13, 2003. 'The  petition^^ filed the petition seeking the change of status 
and extension of stay on July 16, 2003, or 59 days before the expiration of the beneficiary's stay. Because the 
petitioner did not file the petition at least six-months prior to the expiration of the beneticiary's five year stay 
as an L-IB nonimmigrant, the director determined that the petitioner had not filed timely and denied the 
application for an extension of stay pursuant to 8 ('.F.R. Q; 214.2(1)( 15)(ii). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the denial was 
erroneous because the petitioner had filed an immigrant petition on behalf of the beneficiary more than six 
months prior to the expiration of her L-IR stay. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(15)(ii) state the following, in pertinent part: 
The total period of stay may not exceed five years for aliens employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. The total period of stay for an alien employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity may not exceed seven years. No further extensions may be granted. 
When an alien was initially admitted to the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity 
and is later promoted to a managerial or executive position, he or she must have been 
employed in the managerial or executive position for at least six months to be eligible for the 
total period of stay of seven years. Thc change to managerial or executive capacity must 
have been approved by [Citizenship and lmmlgration Services (CIS)] in an amended, new, or 
extended petition at the time that the change occurred. 
In the denial, the director determined that the beneficiary is not eligible for the total period of stay of seven 
years because the petition was not filed at the time the change from specialized knowledge employee to 
managerial employee occurred. 
It is noted that 8 C.F.R. $ 214.1(~)(5) states th~t there is no appeal from the denial of an application for 
extension of stay, whether filed on a Form 1-129 or Form 1-539. Thus, while the AAO may not enter a 
decision on the appeal of the beneficiary's extension of stay, the AAO will review the matter and make notes 
for the record. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary was promoted to a managerial position before February 10, 
2003. Counsel further asserts that after the pro~notion, the petitioner filed an 1-140 Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker seeking to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) 
of the Act. Based on the fact that this immigrant petition was filed with CIS more than six months prior to the 
EAC 03 21 1 52758 
Page 3 
expiration of the beneficiary's L-1B status as an intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge, counsel 
claims that CIS was on notice of the beneficiary's change to managerial employment and the fact that the 
1-129 petition to change her status from L-1B to L-1 A and extend her stay was not filed until July 2003 is 
irrelevant. 
Counsel's assertion is not persuasive. The regulations clearly require CIS approval for the change in the 
beneficiary's employment position at the time of the promotion or change in position. Accordingly, an 
extension of stay may not be approved based on il change from L-IB to L-IA unless the employer files and 
CIS approves an amended, new, or extended petition no later than six months prior to the expiration of the 
beneficiary's period of stay as an L-1B. In the present matter, the petitioner claims in its letter dated July 1, 
2003 that the beneficiary was promoted to a managerial position in December 2000, yet did not file the 1-129 
petition for change of status until 59 days prior to the expiration of the beneficiary's stay.' The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 4 214.l(c)(l) provides that an employer seeking the services of an L-1 nonimmigrant beyond the 
period previously granted must petition for an extension of stay on Form 1-129. There is no provision in the 
regulations which absolves the petitioner from this filing rquirernen~.~ Since the petitioner did not file its I- 
129 petition to extend the beneficiary's stay until .July 2003, the petitioner is thereby ineligible for the benefit 
sought. 
Although the director did not enter a decision on the issue of the beneficiary's claimed managerial or 
executive position or the beneficiary's overseas experience, the issue is moot at this time since the 
beneficiary's period of stay may not exceed five years. The AAO will not address this issue further. 
Furthermore, as of the date of this decision. it amears that the beneficiarv adiusted her status from 
nonirnmigrait to immigrant on February 18. 2005 (SRC 05 102 52499; For this additional 
reason, the appeal in this matter will be rejected a,, moot. 
The petitioner, through counsel, filed a Form I-290B in an attempt to appeal the decision of the director. It is 
noted that 8 C.F.R. 2 14.1 (c)(5) states that there is no appeal from the denial of an application for extension of 
stay. The appeal must be rejected. 
I Although the petitioner did file an 1-129 petition on behalf of the beneficiary on July 23, 2001, it did not 
seek with that petition to change the classification of the beneficiary's position from one involving specialized 
knowledge to that of a managerial or executive capacity. Instead, the petitioner waited until two years after 
the beneficiary was promoted to file the instant petition to request this change. 
2 
Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute itself. Pennsylvania Department of Public 
Welfure v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552 (1990). Statutory language must be given conclusive weight unless the 
legislature expresses an intention to the contrary. Int'l. Brotherhood c$ Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 
474, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The plain meaning of the statutory language should 
control except in rare cases in which a literal application of the statute will produce a result demonstrably at 
odds with the intent of its drafters, in which case it is the intention of the legislators, rather than the strict 
language, that controls. Sumuels, Krarner & Co. v. CIR. 930 F.2d 975 (2d Cir.), crrt. denied, 112 S. Ct. 416 
(1991). 
EAC 03 2 1 1 52758 
Page 4 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.