dismissed L-1A Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10860470 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 30, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "general manager" of its new office 1 
under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition and a subsequent motion, concluding 
that the record did not establish that (1) the Beneficiary had one continuous year of qualifying 
employment abroad during the three years preceding the filing of the petition; (2) the new office would 
be able to support a managerial or executive position within one year of approval of the petition; and 
(3) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity . The Petitioner 
then filed an appeal which we dismissed. We also included an additional ground for dismissal, that is 
the record did not establish a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the foreign entity. The 
matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 2 
On motion, the Petitioner contends our previous decision was in error. Upon review, we will dismiss 
the motion to reopen and the motion reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as, 
for instance, 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). A motion to reconsider must establish that we based our decision on an incorrect 
1 The tenn "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 . 
2 The Petitioner checks the box on the Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal of Motion , indicating that it was filing only a motion 
to reopen . The Petitioner 's brief is labeled a motion to reopen and reconsider. Despite the ambiguity , we will consider 
both motions. 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceeding at the time of the decision. We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In support of this motion, the Petitioner reiterates contentions provided in support of the previous 
appeal and submits a "Tax Clearance Letter For Reinstatement" issued by the Texas Comptroller of 
Public Accounts dated February 24, 2020. The record on motion contains no other new documentary 
evidence. 
The Petitioner submits this document to resolve our observation in the previous decision that the 
Petitioner's registration in the State of Texas appeared to have ended as ofJanuary 13, 2020, according 
to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, https://mycpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/coaSearchBtn. We 
reviewed the new letter and note that although the letter indicates the Petitioner is eligible for 
reinstatement it also required the Petitioner to affirmatively file for reinstatement by May 15, 2021. 
The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts database continues to show the Petitioner's corporate status 
as "franchise tax status has been involuntarily ended." Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, 
https://mycpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/coaSearchBtn (last visited Dec. 2, 2020). Thus, as of this date, the 
Petitioner although eligible has not filed for reinstatement. Although we are not making an adverse 
finding on this issue, we continue to question the Petitioner's intent to do business in the future. 
More importantly, the Petitioner does not address the deficiencies and inconsistencies in the record 
regarding the issue of the Beneficiary's one continuous year of qualifying employment abroad during 
the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Rather, the Petitioner reiterates that the foreign 
company is a family business, and that the Beneficiary while in F-1 nonimmigrant status in the United 
States, worked as an agent for his family researching business opportunities, property locations, 
demographics, and reviewing market studies. The Petitioner does not support these assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. The Petitioner does not explain how these claimed tasks 
constitute working as a general manager 3 for the foreign entity nor does the Petitioner provide 
documentary evidence of these activities. The Petitioner also does not introduce evidence clarifying 
the inconsistencies in the record regarding its qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. The 
Petitioner does not state new facts supported by affidavits or documentary evidence sufficient to meet 
the requirements of a motion to reopen. As the record on motion does not include new, relevant 
evidence regarding these issues, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen this matter. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
With respect to the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence it submitted is 
sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of evidence standard and that we did not apply this standard 
3 We also determine that these duties do not correspond to the duties the Petitioner specified were the Beneficiary's duties 
for the foreign entity and are insufficient to establish the essential eligibility requirement that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment was in a managerial or executive capacity during the required time periods. Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
2 
when adjudicating this matter. As stated in our prior decision we follow the preponderance of the 
evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). This 
standard requires that a petitioner establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit 
sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met 
its burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality 
(including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 3 76; Matter of E-M-, 20 
I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). The Petitioner does not articulate probative reasons which 
establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of the preponderance of 
evidence standard in this matter. 
For example, the Petitioner contends that our review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' 
(USCIS) records regarding the Beneficiary's nonimmigrant F-1 status is conjecture and that more 
likely the officer reviewing the file reviewed another person's file. The Beneficiary's interactions and 
claims with USCIS are a matter ofUSCIS record which includes pictures of the Beneficiary that match 
his passport and visa pictures in the current record. The Petitioner, on whom the burden of proof 
rests, 4 does not offer evidence or credible argument establishing that the Beneficiary had one 
continuous year of qualifying employment abroad during the three years preceding the filing of this 
petition on February 26, 2018, rather than attending school in the United States during the pertinent 
time period. The Petitioner argues that there is no case law or regulation cited that "states the 
Beneficiary is not considered an employee of the foreign company while he was serving as an [a]gent 
on behalf of the foreign company while he was in the U.S." However, contrary to the Petitioner's 
argument, we cited current USCIS policy which establishes that for the Beneficiary's work for the 
foreign entity to be qualifying, the work must have occurred outside of the United States. 5 As 
previously determined, the Petitioner does not include probative, credible evidence that the 
Beneficiary in this matter had at least one year of full-time continuous employment with a qualifying 
entity abroad in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 6 The Petitioner does not state any 
reason for reconsideration on the issue of the Petitioner's failure to establish a qualifying relationship 
with the foreign entity. The Petitioner has not established that our prior decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the 
record of proceeding at the time of the decision. 
For the reasons listed above the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reconsider the previous 
decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen this matter and has not shown proper cause to 
reconsider the previous decision. The Petitioner has not established the length of the Beneficiary's 
4 As in all visa petition proceedings, the burden of proof rests with the Petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
5 USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0167, Satisfying the L-1 !-Year Foreign Employment Requirement; Revisions to 
Chapter 32.3 <!(the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) 4 (Nov. 15, 2018), https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy­
memoranda ("L-1 l-in-3 Policy Memo"). 
6 As discussed above, the Petitioner does not address the numerous deficiencies and inconsistencies in the record detailed 
in our previous decisions regarding the Beneficiary's claimed one-year full-time continuous employment with a qualifying 
entity abroad in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. The Petitioner does not provide new, relevant 
documentary evidence resolving the inconsistencies and establishing any of its purported claims regarding this issue. 
3 
qualifying employment abroad and has not established its qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer. As we concluded in our previous decision, these issues are 
dispositive in this case, thus, we need not reach the other two issues identified by the Director in this 
matter and therefore reserve them. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4