remanded L-1A Case: Financial Technology

invasion dpemmal privacy 
PUBLIC copy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC 07 277 53100 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUrj 8 9 2008 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 1 (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 
WAC 07 277 53 100 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the California Service Center denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). 
The petitioner is a Delaware corporation allegedly engaged in the "electronic financial solutions" business. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its "president" as an L-1A nonimrnigrant intracompany 
transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 
1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed to establish (1) that 
it and the foreign employer are qualifLing organizations; or (2) that the beneficiary will be employed in the 
United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.3(a)(2) requires an affected party to file the complete appeal within 30 days after 
service of the decision, or, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5a(b), wih 33 days if the decision was served by 
mail. The record indicates that the decision of the director was sent to the petitioner and its counsel on January 
10, 2008. Counsel to the petitioner filed an appeal with the California Service Center on Wednesday, February 
13, 2008, 34 days after the decision was served. Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected on 
these grounds pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(I). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 1 03.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a 
motion to reopen as described in 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5(a)(3), the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decision must be made on the merits of the case. 
In this matter, it is noted that the untimely appeal meets the applicable requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a). The official having jurisdiction over a motion is the official who made the last decision 
in the proceeding, in this case the service center director. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(ii). Therefore, the 
director must consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reconsider and render a new decision accordingly. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is rejected. The matter is returned to the director for consideration as a motion to 
reconsider.