dismissed L-1A Case: Wholesale Distribution

identifying daw deleted to 
prevent clearly unwa~ted 
invasion of person?! privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: EAC 07 035 5 1562 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: AuG 0 1 2008 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 035 5 1562 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: On March 22, 2007, the Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the nonimmigrant 
visa petition. The petitioner appealed this denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), and, on 
December 21, 2007, the AAO dismissed the appeal. On January 22, 2008, counsel to the petitioner filed a 
Motion to Reopen/Reconsider the AAOts decision in accordance with 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5. The Motion will be 
dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $8 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), 103.5(a)(2), 103.5(a)(3), and 103.5(a)(4). 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the 
State of Texas and is allegedly a wholesaler and distributor of metallic balloons. The director denied the 
petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United 
States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Although the AAO on appeal withdrew certain 
comments made by the director in the decision, the AAO ultimately dismissed the subsequently filed appeal 
and agreed with the director that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On motion, counsel to the petitioner asserts that the AAO erred in dismissing the appeal while acknowledging 
the flaws in the director's decision. Counsel also argues that the AAO erred "in finding additional reasons to 
uphold the director's position." 
Upon review, the motion shall be dismissed for failing to meet applicable requirements. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.5(a)(l)(iii) lists the filing requirements for motions to reopen and motions 
to reconsider. Section 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) requires that motions be " [alccompanied by a statement about 
whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding." 
In this matter, the motion does not contain the statement required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C). The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4) states that a motion which does not meet applicable requirements must be 
dismissed. Therefore, because the instant motion did not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 8 
C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must be dismissed for this reason. 
Furthermore, upon review, the AAO will dismiss the motion for failing to meet the applicable requirements 
for motions to reopen set forth in 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(2). "[A] motion to reopen must state the new facts to be 
provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence." Id. In 
this matter, counsel offers no new evidence on motion. The unsupported statements of counsel in a motion are 
not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188- 
89 n.6 (1 984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
Accordingly, the motion does not meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reopen and must be 
dismissed for that reason. 
Finally, the AAO will dismiss the motion for failing to meet the applicable requirements for motions to reconsider 
set forth in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). This regulation states, in perhnent part, that "[a] motion to reconsider must 
state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any perhnent precedent decisions to establish that the 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or [Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] policy." 
EAC 07 035 51562 
Page 3 
Id. In this matter, counsel fails to cite to any precedent decisions establishing that the AAO's withdrawal of 
certain comments made by the director, while ultimately determining that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, was based on a incorrect 
application of law or policy. To the contrary, the AAO did not commit an error of law or policy in concluding 
that the petitioner failed to carry its burden of proof in these proceedings. An application or petition that fails to 
comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does 
not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 
229 F. Swpp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 
F.2d at 1002 n. 9 (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
As such, the Motion does not meet the applicable requirements and must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(4). 
' 
Motions for the reopening or reconsideration of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as 
petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See INS v. Doherty, 
502 U.S. 3 14, 323 (1992)(citing LMS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seelung to reopen a proceeding 
bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the movant has not met that 
burden. The motion will be dismissed. 
Finally, it should be noted for the record that, unless CIS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion does not stay the 
execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set departure date. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not 
be reopened or reconsidered, and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.