dismissed L-1A Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-M- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 24, 2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a management company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the general 
manager of its new office under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
TheL-IA 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established, as required, that it would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity within one year of approval. The Director reopened the matter pursuant to the Petitioner's 
motion to reopen and affirmed the denial of the petition. The Petitioner subsequently filed an 
appeal, which we dismissed, further finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it had secured 
sufficient physical premises to house its new office. 
In its motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that its prior counsel 
was responsible for its deficient submissions, which it claims "did not fully capture the full scope" of 
its intended U.S. operations and the link between the Petitioner's business and that of its foreign 
parent entity. The Petitioner contends that it operates as a management and a consultant company 
and indicates that the latter element was not included in prior submissions. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion to reopen. ( 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration," a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as 
submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), 
and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must ( 1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on 
motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original 
Matter of A-M- Inc. 
petitiOn. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not 
constitute "new facts." 1 We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The two issues we will address in this matter are whether the Petitioner established that: (1) it would 
employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of the 
petition; and (2) it had secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office, as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
For the reasons discussed below,. we will deny the motion to reopen. While the current motion 
includes newly submitted evidence, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or 
established eligibility for the requested benefit. 
A. U.S. Employment in a Managerial Capacity 
An L-1 A petition filed on behalf of a beneficiary coming to open a new office must be accompanied 
by evidence that the beneficiary would have executive or managerial authority over the new office 
and evidence that the new U.S. operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, will 
support a managerial or executive position, as defined at section 101(a)(44) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(44). See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
In dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we determined that the Petitioner provided a deficient job 
description that did not fully disclose what actual tasks the Beneficiary would perform within the 
context of the Petitioner's operation during its first year and beyond. We noted that the Petitioner 
did not articulate the nature of the "business development" function it claimed the Beneficiary would 
manage or identify anyone other than the Beneficiary who would perform the underlying duties 
related to that function. We addressed the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), which included the submission of an organizational chart that contained new 
proposed staffing positions that were not included in the original chart. We deemed the new chart to 
be indicative of a material change intended for the purpose of making a deficient petition conform to 
USCIS requirements. See Matter of /zummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). We 
also observed that the gas station mini marts that the Petitioner was contracted to manage were 
understaffed and that the Beneficiary would likely be required to participate in their daily operational 
tasks, performing duties that are outside the realm of what is deemed as being within a managerial 
capacity. 
1 We note that the Petitioner has resubmitted a number of documents that it previously submitted either prior to the 
denial or in support of the appeal. While we have reviewed and considered all of the evidence submitted in support of 
the instant motion, only those documents that were not previously submitted will be specifically addressed in this 
decision. 
2 
.
Matter of A-M- Inc. . 
We also addressed whether the Petitioner had established its financial ability to hire the three newly 
proposed employees within its first year of operation, noting that the income the Petitioner would 
generate from its current management contracts would not be sufficient to cover the Beneficiary's 
salary of $75,000 per year and the $180,000 in combined salaries that would be paid to the other 
employees. We also reviewed the federal tax returns of the two businesses the Petitioner was hired 
to manage and observed that their respective incomes were not sufficient to pay the Petitioner the 
fees required by the management contracts. In addition, we noted a discrepancy between the 
Petitioner's claim regarding the amount of funds the foreign entity contributed and the Petitioner's 
bank account balances, which showed that the Petitioner received approximately $20,000 less than 
the promised amount. 
In sum, we concluded that the record did not present a consistent, credible picture of the Petitioner's 
organizational structure or the Beneficiary's actual job duties within the organization itself or in 
relation to the managed companies. We also found that the Petitioner's supporting financial 
evidence was inconsistent with the Petitioner's claims and did not establish that the Petitioner would 
be able to support its operations and commence business operations in the United States. 
On motion, counsel for the Petitioner contends that prior counsel neglected to properly advise the 
Petitioner, thereby leading to an incomplete understanding of the Petitioner's business model and the 
Beneficiary's role within the organization. However, this general claim that the Petitioner's prior 
counsel was responsible for providing incomplete information is not sufficient to overcome the 
various deficiencies catalogued in our prior decision. The Petitioner must support its assertions with 
rel~vant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
201 0). The Petitioner has not explained any specific errors or oversights made by prior counsel and 
does not claim, for example, it has 
filed a complaint or taken any action against her. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner now offers a statement from the Petitioner's 
"partner/owner," who claims that the Petitioner's management and consulting business was 
previously described in other submissions. statement also contains several references 
to the Petitioner's previously submitted business plan. We note, however, that while 
statement on motion is new, much of the information contained therein is not new and primarily 
refers to a business plan that was previously submitted and discussed in our prior decision. Further, 
statement, claiming that the Petitioner's business was "described in great detail in 
previous filings" is inconsistent with counsel's claim that the prior filings were deficient and did not 
accurately convey an understanding of the Petitioner's business model. 
also claims that the Beneficiary's role "will not be in that of convenience store 
manager," but rather that he will "will analyze our local market and work to identify undervalued or 
underperforming businesses," which would be the recipients of the Petitioner's services. However, 
we previously discussed the Beneficiary's proposed job duties and concluded that the Petitioner did 
not provide us with sufficient information about the Beneficiary's actual daily tasks such that we 
could assess what the Beneficiary would actually be doing during the Petitioner's first year of 
operations and conclude that the job duties he would perform beyond that initial year of operations 
would be primarily of a managerial. Broadly stating that the Beneficiary would be a leader within 
3 
.
Matter of A-M- Inc. 
the petitioning organization where he would analyze local markets and identify potential clients is 
not new information and does not cure the previously mentioned evidentiary deficiencies, which 
focused on the ambiguities of the Beneficiary's position description. Further, while counsel's 
statement on motion focuses in part on the foreign entity and its "varied business dealings in India" 
as a means of establishing that the "Petitioner will also be a diverse management and consulting 
company," the foreign entity's existing business ventures do not shed light on the Petitioner's 
business offerings and its ability to meet the business objectives set out in its original business plan. 
While counsel claims that the Petitioner's supporting evidence on motion includes documents 
showing that the Petitioner's foreign parent entity "has taken the necessary steps to transfer the final 
portion of its initial investment in the Petitioner's business," this claim is unsubstantiated, as the 
record does not include such documents. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. See, e.g., Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 
(BIA 1980). The Petitioner's submissions on motion do not support counsel's claim regarding the 
foreign entity's attempt to wire additional funds. In fact, the Petitioner's RFE response statement 
expressly states that while the foreign entity wired the Petitioner an initial sum of $50,000 to 
commence business operations, it stated that "[a]dditional funds will be wired ... as needed." There 
is no evidence that the foreign entity intended to invest an initial sum of $75,000 as originally 
claimed or that it actually took steps to wire the balance ofthe funds, beyond the initial amount, as 
of the date the petition was filed. 
We find that the Petitioner's submissions in support of the motion do not address all of the 
deficiencies discussed in our prior decision and do not overcome our prior finding that the Petitioner 
did not establish that at the time of filing it would more likely than not grow to the point where it 
could support a managerial position within one year of the petition's approval. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established that reopening of this matter is warranted. 
B. Sufficient Physical Premises 
Next, we will address the issue of sufficient physical premises. An L-1 A petition involving a new office 
must be accompanied by evidence that the Petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house 
the new office prior to filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
In dismissing the appeal, we acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted a copy of its lease for an office 
in Pennsylvania, dated May 4, 2015, in response to the Director's RFE. However, 
we questioned why the Petitioner did not use this address or submit this lease at the time of filing, or 
provided evidence that of any other physical premises secured as of that date. In addition, we observed 
that the Petitioner's bank statements from May 2015 did not indicate that the Petitioner made payments 
that were consistent with the monthly lease term of $750 plus a security deposit equivalent to one­
month's rent. 
On motion, explains that the late submission of the lease agreement was "due to a 
misunderstanding between [the Petitioner] and prior counsel regarding the exact nature of [the 
4 
.
Matter of A-M- Inc. 
Beneficiary]'s general manager duties in the United States." However, this explanation is insufficient, 
as the Petitioner does not state the specific nature of the "misunderstanding" or clarify the nexus 
between submitting a business lease and providing a description of the Beneficiary's proposed job 
duties. In other words, if a lease had been fully executed as of May 4, 2015, the date it was signed, it is 
unclear why the Petitioner did not provide it in support of the petition, which was filed 4 days later, on 
May 8, 2015, or why it did not identify the leased premises as the Beneficiary's work location on the 
petition itself. Further, despite claiming that the Beneficiary would perform the "vast majority" of his 
assigned job duties at the leased business premises, does not address or resolve the 
inconsistency between the address cited in the lease agreement and the one cited in its business plan. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (requiring that the Petitioner resolve 
inconsistencies in the record by submitting independent, objective evidence). 
Further, while the Petitioner submits photographs of the office, it has not addressed 
our finding that its bank statements for May 2015 did not reflect that the Petitioner had actually paid the 
first month's rent and security deposit for this office according to the terms of the lease agreement, 
which would tend to support its claim that it had actually secured the premises prior to filing the 
petition. Accordingly, the evidence submitted on motion does not overcome our prior determination on· 
this issue. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening as the evidence submitted on 
motion does 
not establish eligibility for the requested classification. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-M- Inc., ID# 303128 (AAO Apr. 24, 2017) 
5