dismissed L-1A Case: Car Rental

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-R-S- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 10,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a car rental company, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its 
general manager 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)(l5)(L). The 
L-1 A 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the extended petition. The Petitioner appealed the Director's decision and we 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief, re­
submits the evidence it submitted on appeal, and asserts that we erred by not considering evidence 
that the Beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) limits our authority to reopen the proceeding to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening, a petitioner 
must not only 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),' but also show proper 
cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3), "Requirements for motion to reconsider," states: 
A motion to reconsider must [(1)] state the reasons for reconsideration and ((2)] be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a 
Matter of L-R-S-Inc. 
decision on an application or petition must [(3)], [(a)] when filed, also [(b)] establish 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. 
These provisions are augmented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form l-290B, which states: 
Motion to Reconsider: The motion must be supported by citations to appropriate 
statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions when filed and must establish that the 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and that the decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of decision. 
A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the prior decision based on the previous factual 
record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new facts. Compare 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
A motion to reconsider should not be used to raise a legal argument that could have been raised 
·earlier in the proceedings. See Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 219 (BIA 1990, 1991) 
("Arguments for consideration on appeal should all be submitted at one time, rather than in 
piecemeal fashion."). Rather, any "arguments" that are raised in a motion to reconsider should flow 
from new law or a de novo legal determination that could not have been addressed by the affected 
party. Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (examining motions to reconsider under a 
similar scheme provided at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)); see also Martinez-Lopez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 169, 
171-72 (1st Cir. 2013). Further, the reiteration ofprevious arguments or general allegations of error 
in the prior decision will not suffice. Instead, the affected party must state the specific factual and 
legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in the initial decision. See 
Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 60. 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner has submitted a seven-page brief and copies of all exhibits it previously submitted in 
support of its appeal. Upon review of the brief, six pages were taken verbatim from the brief 
submitted in support of the Petitioner's appeal and therefore address the Director's decision dated 
September 29, 2015. As stated above, the reiteration of previous arguments already made on appeal 
does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. We already reviewed and addressed these 
arguments, and the associated exhibits submitted on appeal, in our decision dated July 21, 2016. The 
Petitioner's motion must state specific factual and legal issues, raised in that decision, that were 
decided in error. 
To the extent that the Petitioner addresses our decision, its brief mentions that we denied its appeal 
on August 29, 2012, and states the following: 
2 
Matter of L-R-S-Inc. 
The AAO's decision was based on an incorrect application of the law by not properly 
considering the evidence submitted by the petitioner. Specifically, the beneficiary has 
demonstrated that he has the experience and knowledge to qualify as a Multinational 
Executive/Manager, and the Petitioner has shown its financial capability to pay the 
proffered wage from the priority date up until the date of the decision. 
' 
We dismissed the appeal based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the Beneficiary would primarily perform managerial or executive duties under 
the extended petition and because the evidence of record did not establish that the Petitioner had the 
staffing in place at the end of its first year of operations to support a managerial or executive 
position. These findings were based on specific deficiencies and inconsistencies in the evidence 
submitted with respect to the Beneficiary's job duties and the job duties performed by his 
subordinates, which were discussed at length in our decision. We did not question the Beneficiary's 
experience or knowledge, nor did we address the Petitioner's ability to pay the Beneficiary's wages. 
Therefore, on motion the Petitioner has neither acknowledged nor addressed the specific findings 
made in our decision. We conclude that the documents constituting this motion do not articulate 
·how our decision on appeal misapplied any pertinent statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions to 
the evidence of record when the decision to dismiss the appeal was rendered. The Petitioner has not 
submitted any document that would meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. Accordingly, 
the motion to reconsider must be denied. 
The Petitioner should note that, unless USCIS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion to reconsider 
does not stay the execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set departure date. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iv). 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the irpmigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
Accordingly, the combined motion will be denied, the proceedings will not be reopened or 
reconsidered, and our previous decision will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of L-R-S- LLC, ID# 135270 (AAO Jan. 10, 20 17) 
3