dismissed L-1B Case: Business

U.S. Department of Elomeland Security 
20 Mass. Avenue, N.W. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizen4hip 
and Immigjation 
I 
File: LIN 04 190 50989 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 4 1 0 2005 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 l(a)(lS)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: I I 
INSTRUCTIONS: 1 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have b en returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 1 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 190 50989 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the application to extend 
period of stay in nonirnmigrant status. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to extend the beneficiary's status as an intracompan 
specialized knowledge pursuant to 9 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition on the basis that the beneficiary had been 
five years at the time of the petition's filing, and that an extension was not possible since it 
maximum time period set forth in 8 C.F.R $ 2 14.2(1)(12)(i). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner 
miscommunication between counsel, the petitioner, and the petitioner's former 
erroneously requested extension of the beneficiary's L-1B status while the beneficiary 
status. Specifically, counsel contends that the petitioner had previously amended the 
L-1B to L-1A in May 2002 and that, due to the petitioner's ignorance of immigration 
and former counsel's unavailability, an L-1B extension request was 
petitioner's recent discovery of the L-1A approval notice from May 
petition should be reviewed by the AAO as a petition to extend the beneficiary's L-1A status. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(15)(ii) state the following, in pertinent part: I 
The total period of stay may not exceed five years for aliens employed in a 
knowledge capacity. The total period of stay for an alien employed in a 
executive capacity may not exceed seven years. No further extensions 
When an alien was initially admitted to the United States in a specialized 
and is later promoted to a managerial or executive position, he or 
employed in the managerial or executive position for at least six months 
total period of stay of seven years. The change to managerial or 
have been approved by [Citizenship and Immigration Services 
extended petition at the time that the change occurred. 
In the denial, the director based his conclusions on the evidence presented by the petitioner. 
director concluded that, based on the petitioner's response to the request for evidence 
beneficiary's stay in the United States, the beneficiary had been in L-1B status for five 
filing. Thus, the director concluded, the petitioner was ineligible by law for any further 
not previously filed a petition to amend the beneficiary's status from specialized 
intracompany transferee working in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
decision would be correct in the event that the beneficiary's status had not been 
the issue before the AAO. 
On appeal, counsel submits evidence of the beneficiary's prior change of status from L-1B 
result, counsel requests the AAO to treat this petition as an extension request for a 
executive, and not an extension of status for a specialized knowledge worker as 
LIN 04 190 50989 
Page 3 
Form 1-129. Counsel's request to amend the petition on appeal, however, is not properly b fore the AAO. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. Ej 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C) state: 1 
The petitioner shall file an amended petition, with fee, at the service center where the 
petition was filed to reflect changes in approved relationships, additional 
organizations under a blanket petition, change in capacity of employment 
specialized knowledge position to a managerial position), or any information 
affect the beneficiary's eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
The request to reconsider the original petition on appeal as a petition for L-1A classificati 
rejected. 
Furthermore, as discussed briefly by the director, the record reflects that the petitioner did 
for an extension within the required time frame. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ij 
pertinent part, that a petition extension may be filed only if the validity of 
expired. In the present case, the beneficiary's authorized period of stay 
the petition for an extension of the beneficiary's status was filed on June 
the expiration of the beneficiary's status. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. ij 
approved for an applicant who failed to maintain the previously 
before the application or petition was filed. The petitioner's 
contributed to the delay, introduced for the first time before 
petition was not timely filed, it is noted for the record that the 
in the United States. 
The petitioner, through counsel, filed a Form I-290B in an attempt to appeal the decision of th 
noted that 8 C.F.R. 214.1(~)(5) states that there is no appeal from the denial of an application 
stay. The appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 1