dismissed L-1A Case: Unknown

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
MAIL STOP 2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 07 139 52399 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: WOV 0 Q 2008 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 l(aX 1 5)(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. 
/Y Robert P. Wieman , Chief 
t 
ministrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 139 52399 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, approved the nonimmigrant visa petition, but denied 
the application to change the beneficiary's status from B-2 to L-IA and to extend the beneficiary's period of 
authorized stay. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be rejected. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany 
transferee pursuant to 5 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). As 
the beneficiary was physically present in the United States in B-2 status as of the date of filing, the petitioner 
also sought to change the beneficiary's status, and to extend her stay for a period of three years. The director 
approved the petition to classify the beneficiary as an L-IA nonimmigrant on November 6, 2007. However, 
on January 15, 2008, the director denied the application for a change and extension of status. The director 
properly advised the petitioner that the decision may not be appealed. 
On February 11, 2008, the petitioner filed a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and clearly indicated 
on the form that is filing an appeal, notwithstanding an accompanying brief from counsel titled "Motion to 
Reopen and Reconsider." Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(8), the official who denied an application or petition 
may treat the appeal from that decision as a motion for the purpose of granting the motion. Here, the director 
declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded it to the AAO. 
It is noted that 8 C.F.R. 5 214.l(c)(5) states that there is no appeal Erom the denial of an application for 
extension of stay, whether filed on a Form 1-129 or Form 1-539. Therefore, the AAO does not have 
jurisdiction over this matter, and the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.