dismissed L-1B Case: Business

U.S. Department dHomeland Security 
20 Mass. Avenue, N.W. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: LIN 04 190 50989 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: , 1~5 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1101(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 190 50989 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the application to extend the beneficiary's 
period of stay in nonirnrnigrant status. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to extend the beneficiary's status as an intracompany transferee with 
specialized knowledge pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 
1 lOl(a)(lS)(L). The director denied the petition on the basis that the beneficiary had been in L-1B status for 
five years at the time of the petition's filing, and that an extension was not possible since it would exceed the 
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 as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the kAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that due to 
miscommunication between counsel, the petitioner, and the petitioner's former counsel, the petition 
erroneously requested extension of the beneficiary's L-1B status while the beneficiary was lawfully in L-1A 
status. Specifically, counsel contends that the petitioner had pre\lously amended the beneficiary's status from 
L-1B to L-1A in May 2002 and that, due to the petitioner's ignorance of immigration law, incomplete records, 
and former counsel's unavailability, an L-1B extension request was inadvertently filed. Relying on the 
petitioner's recent discovery of the L-IA approval notice from May 2002, counsel now claims that the 
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. 5 214.2(1)(15)(ii) state the following, in pertinent part: 
The total period of stay may not exceed five years for aliens employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. The total period of stay for an alien employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity may not exceed seven years. No further extensions may be granted. 
When an alien was initially admitted to the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity 
and is later promoted to a managerial or executive position, he or she must have been 
employed in the managerial or executive position for at least six months to be eligible for the 
total period of stay of seven years. The change to managerial or executive capacity must 
have been approved by [Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] in an amended, new, or 
extended petition at the time that the change occurred. 
In the denial, the director based his conclusions on the evidence presented by the petitioner. Specifically, the 
director concluded that, based on the petitioner's response to the request for evidence which outlined the 
beneficiary's stay in the United States, the beneficiary had been in L-IB status for five years at the time of 
filing. Thus, the director concluded, the petitioner was ineligible by law for any further extension since it had 
not previously filed a petition to amend the beneficiary's status from specialized knowledge worker to 
intracompany transferee working in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. While the director's 
decision would be correct in the event that the beneficiary's status had not been amended to L-lA, that is not 
the issue before the AAO. 
On appeal, counsel submits evidence of the beneficiary's prior change of status from L-IB to L-1A. As a 
result, counsel requests the AAO to treat this petition as an extension request for a multinational manager or 
executive, and not an extension of status for a specialized knowledge worker as claimed in the petition and on 
LIN 04 190 50989 
Page 3 
Form 1-129. Counsel's request to amend the petition on appeal, however, is not properly before the AAO. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. €j 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C) state: 
The petitioner shall file an amended petition, with fee, at the service center where the original 
petition was filed to reflect changes in approved relationships, additional qualifying 
organizations under a blanket petition, change in capacity of employment (i.e. from a 
specialized knowledge position to a managerial position), or any information which would 
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-IA classificatian is, therefore, 
rejected. 
Furthermore, as discussed briefly by the director, the record reflects that the petitioner did not file the petition 
for an extension within the required time frame. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(3)(14)(1) provides, in 
pertinent part, that a petition extension may be filed only if the validity of the original petition has not 
expired. In the present case, the beneficiary's authorized period of stay expired on May 9, 2004. However, 
the petition for an extension of the beneficiary's status was filed on June 18, 2004, over one month following 
the expiration of the beneficiary's status. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 214.1(~)(4), an extension of stay may not be 
approved for an applicant who failed to maintain the previously accorded status or where such status expired 
before the application or petition was filed. The petitioner's claims of extraordinary circumstances which 
contributed to the delay, introduced for the first time before the AAO, are not persuasive. As the extension 
petition was not timely filed, it is noted for the record that the beneficiary is ineligble for an extension of stay 
in the United States. 
The petitioner, through counsel, filed a Form I-290B in an attempt to appeal the decision of the director. It is 
noted that 8 C.F.R. 214.1(~)(5) states that there is no appeal from the denial of an application for extension of 
stay. The appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.