dismissed L-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 2, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a convenience store, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the President of its 
new office 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L). The L-lA 
classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a 
qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, 
or that the Petitioner's new office will support the Beneficiary in an executive or managerial position 
within one year of approval of the petition. We summarily dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal 
because it did not include a statement in support of the appeal that specifically identified an erroneous 
conclusion oflaw or fact in the Director's decision. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner submits a 
brief and additional evidence addressing the Director's decision and the merits of its case. 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements and show 
proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l). A motion to reopen must state new facts 
and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must 
establish that we based our decision on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. We may 
grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested 
immigration benefit. 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of A-, Inc. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts supported by documentary 
evidence sufficient to warrant reopening its appeal, or established that our decision to summarily dismiss 
its appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy. 
The regulations provide that an officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal 
when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). We summarily dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner 
did not submit a statement identifying any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis 
for the appeal, as instructed on the Form I-290B. The Form I-290B indicated that these materials were 
attached; however, nothing was submitted with the Form I-290B on appeal. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not assert that our summary dismissal was incorrect. Instead, it states: 
"I am submitted [sic] form I-290B along with the following supporting documents. Please be advised 
that these documents were originally submitted with the petition. However, the officer reviewing the 
file failed to comprehend the significance of the partnership agreement as it relates to the beneficiary's 
executive responsibilities." The Petitioner does not assert that we misapplied any law or policy in our 
summary dismissal. Its argument on motion relates to the Director's decision, and not our summary 
dismissal. Therefore, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider our prior 
decision. 
The Petitioner also has not submitted any new facts that would overcome our decision to summarily 
dismiss the appeal. The motion includes copies of partnership agreements that were originally submitted 
with the petition. However, these are not new facts. We will not consider the newly submitted brief 
discussing the merits of the case absent evidence that we summarily dismissed the appeal in error. The 
Petitioner has not provided such evidence or shown that the matter should be reopened. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-, Inc., ID# 2542780 (AAO May 2, 2019) 
2