dismissed L-1B Case: Watch And Jewelry Repair

ibdfLing data deleted to 
pmven t clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave , N W , Rm A3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citize-nship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
 .. B% 
File: EAC 04 237 53812 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: W' 23 2006 
I 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 237 53812 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa pet~tion and the 
matter is now before the Administrat~ve 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 petitloner 1s a New York corporat~on allegedly engaged in the business of watch and jewelry repalr. The 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a manager as an L-1B nonimmigrant intracompany transferee 
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 
1101(a)(15)(L). The d~rector denied the petition concluding that the pet~t~oner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary possesses spec~alized knowledge or that he w~ll be employed in a pos~tion requiring specialized 
knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2) requlres an affected party to file the complete appeal wthin 30 days after 
service of the decision, or, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5a(b), within 33 days if the decision was served by 
mall. The record indicates that the decis~on of the director was faxed to and received In accordance with the 
information provided by counsel on the Form 1-907, Request for Prem~um Process~ng Service, on Monday, 
November 15, 2004. Counsel to the petitloner filed an appeal with the Vermont Semce Center on Monday, 
December 20,2004,35 days after the decision was served upon counsel to the pet~tioner by fax. 
Thus, the appeal was not timely filed and must be rejected on these grounds pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 
lo3.3(a>(2>(v)(B>(l>. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. tj 103.5(a)(2) or a motion to reconsider as described in 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.5(a)(3), the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decis~on must be made on the ments of the case. The 
official having jurisdiction over a motion 1s the official who made the last decision in the proceed~ng, in this case 
the servlce center director. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The director declined to treat the late appeal as a 
motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.