dismissed L-1A Case: Unspecified

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Senices 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwarrantad 
invasion of personal privaoy 
. - - 
FILE: EAC 09 15 1 53234 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 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 mher inquiry must be made to that 
office. 
4 
, Perry Rhew 
@ 
hiif, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 09 1 5 1 53234 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, approved the nonimmigrant visa petition, but denied 
the appljcation to extend the beneficiary's period of 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 8 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1 101 (a)(15)(L). As 
the beneficiaq was physically present in the United States as of the date of filing, the petitioner also sought to 
extend her stay for a period of two years. The director approved the petitioh to classify the beneficiary as an 
L-lA nonimigrant on July 7, 2009 with validity dates of June 30, 2009 to June 29, 201 1. However, on July 
7, 2009, the director denied the application for an extension of status. The director properly advised the 
petitioner that the decision may not be appealed. 
It is noted that 8 C.F.R. fj 214.1(~)(5) states that there is no appeal fkom the denial of an application for 
extension of stay, whether filed on a Fom 1-129 or Form 1-539. Therefore, the AAO does not have 
jurisdiction over this matter, and the appeal must be rejected. 
On September 28, 2009, the Vermont Service Center received a letter fiom the petitioner requesting that the 
"appeal" be withdrawn. However, this request is moot as the AAO does not have jurisdiction over this matter. 
Accordingly, the applicant's appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
1 
 On August 3, 2009, the petitioner filed a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and indicated by 
checking box D in Part 2 of the form that it is filing a "Motion to Reopen," although in Part 3, counsel for the 
petitioner indicated that it is filing a request to reopen and reconsider. The director subsequently forwarded 
the Form I-290B to the AAO as an appeal. Although it is not clear that the petition intended to file an appeal, 
the petitioner has now requested that the AAO withdraw the "appeal." In an effort to effectuate the 
petitioner's request, the matter will be treated as an improperly filed appeal.