dismissed L-1B Case: Leather Goods

iasntifj.~ data deleted to 
prevent ole& unwarranted 
of privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 03 078 52910 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: ,)UN 0 4 2001 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
/.- - ---%-- 
~obert7 Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 078 52910 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: On December 3,2003, the Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the nonimmigrant 
visa petition. The petitioner appealed this denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on December 
27,2003, and, on July 12,2004, the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal. On August 9,2004, the petitioner 
filed a motion to reconsider the AAO's decision with the Vermont Service Center. The motion will be 
dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $8 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) and (D), 103.5(a)(3), and 103.5(a)(4). 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seelung to extend the employment of its president as an L-1B 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee having specialized knowledge pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). 
 The petitioner, a New York 
corporation, claims to be an importer and distributor of leather goods. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. As indicated above, the AAO 
summarily dismissed the subsequently filed appeal of the director's decision on July 12, 2004, and the 
petitioner moved to reconsider the AAO's decision. 
First, the motion shall be dismissed for failing to meet two 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." Section 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(D) 
requires that motions be "[alddressed to the official having jurisdiction." In this matter, the motion does not 
contain the statement required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C). Moreover, the motion was not addressed to 
official having jurisdiction, i.e., the AAO. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(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) and (D), it must be dismissed for this 
reason. 
Second, upon review, the AAO will dismiss the motion for failure to meet the applicable requirements set 
forth in 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(3). The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(3) require motions to reconsider to "state 
the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or [Citizenship and Immigration Services] policy." In this 
matter, counsel asserts that the AAO erred in summarily dismissing its appeal from the director's December 3, 
2003 decision on July 12, 2004 because it submitted a brief in support of its December 27, 2003 appeal on or 
about June 2 1,2004, or three weeks before the AAO dismissed the appeal. However, counsel did not support its 
motion with any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the AAO's failure to consider a brief filed almost 
six months after the filing of an appeal, and where counsel has represented in the Form I-290B that a brief andlor 
evidence would be submitted within 30 days of the filing of the appeal, was an incorrect application of law or 
policy. For this reason alone, the motion must be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(4) as the motion fails 
to meet applicable requirements. 
Regardless, the AAO concludes that its summary dismissal of the December 27,2003 appeal was not in error. As 
indicated above, counsel filed the instant appeal on December 27, 2003. Counsel stated in the Form I-290B, and 
in a letter dated December 19,2003, that a brief andlor evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. 
EAC 03 078 52910 
Page 3 
Counsel alleges that it filed a brief with the AAO on or about June 21, 2004, almost 6 months after the filing of 
the appeal. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(vi) permit an affected party to file a brief with the Form I- 
290B. The AAO may grant an affected party additional time to file a brief. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(vii). 
Consistent with the discretion described in 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(2)(vii), the Form I-290B extends to all appellants 
the option of submitting a brief andlor additional evidence directly to the AAO within 30 days. However, as is 
clear in both the Form I-290B and the regulations, any extensions of time greater than 30 days require a showing 
of "good cause." In this matter, counsel chose not to submit a brief until, allegedly, June 21,2004, and the record 
is devoid of any request for additional time in which to file a brief. Therefore, the AAO's summary dismissal and 
failure to consider the brief was not in error. 
It should be noted for the record that, unless Citizenship and Immigration Services directs otherwise, the filing of 
a motion to reopen or reconsider does not stay the execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set 
departure date. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
Title 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(4) states that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." 
Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not be reconsidered, and the previous decisions 
of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.