dismissed L-1A Case: Clothing Wholesale

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-C- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 4, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a clothing wholesaler, 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 IOI(a)(IS)(L), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(IS)(L). The 
L-1 A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its afliliate or subsidiary) to 
transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work temporarily in a managerii:il or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required. that: (I) a qualifying relationship exists between the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary's employer abroad; (2) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition; and (3) the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner appealed the Director's decision and 
we dismissed the appeal. 
The matter is now before us again on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, the 
Petitioner reiterates the Beneficiary's stated duties and asserts that it is submitting new evidence to 
demonstrate a qualifying relationship between it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
Upon review, we will deny both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (I) 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 is based on legal grounds and must (I) state the reasons for 
reconsideration; (2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Malter ofS-C- Inc. 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
As noted, the Director denied the petition and we dismissed the appeal on three separate grounds. 
However, the Petitioner does not provide reasons for reconsideration or cite to pertinent precedent 
decisions to establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, as 
required. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(3). Accordingly, we tind that the Petitioner does not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
In dismissing the appeal, we pointed to the Petitioner's IRS Form 1120 U.S. Corporation Income 
Tax Return, which indicated that it was not wholly owned by the foreign entity as asserted. In 
addition, we found that the Petitioner did not submit sufticient supporting documentation to 
substantiate its ownership, such as its articles of incorporation, its stock ledger, or other similar 
evidence of ownership. As we noted in our previous decision, regulation and case law confirm that 
ownership and control arc the f~tctors that must be examined in determining whether a qualifying 
relationship exists between United States and foreign entities. See, e.g., Maller of Church 
Scientology Jnt'/, 19 l&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Maller of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 
362 (Comm'r 1986): Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). 
On motion, the Petitioner indicates that it has provided an updated IRS Form 1120, specifically 
Schedule G of this form, "to document and establish correct ownership of the company." Further. 
the Petitioner states that its supporting evidence on motion includes a "memorandum of 
understanding trom [the foreign employer] showing its direct relationship between [it], and its US 
affiliate, [the Petitioner]." However, the record does not show that the Petitioner has submitted 
either of these documents on motion. Rather, the Petitioner submits the Beneficiary's 2015 IRS 
Form I 040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return and a foreign employer-audited financial statement, 
neither of which support the Petitioner's ownership claim. The financial statement makes no 
reference to the Petitioner's ownership and is not probative towards establishing a qualifying 
relationship. In fact. schedule C of the Beneficiary's IRS Form I 040, Pro tit or Loss from Business 
(Sole Proprietorship), indicates that the Beneficiary owns the Petitioner as a sole proprietorship, 
which is inconsistent with the Petitioner's contention that it is wholly owned by the foreign 
employer. The Petitioner has not resolved this inconsistency in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. A1atter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BlA 
1988). 
Regardless, the Petitioner states that it has submitted new evidence relevant to overcoming our basis 
for dismissing the appeal based on a lack of qualifying relationship, namely an amended IRS Form 
1120 and a memorandum of understanding. However, the Petitioner has provided no such new 
evidence. As such, the Petitioner has not submitted suftlcient evidence to reopen the issue of its 
qualifying relationship with the foreign employer. 
2 
Maller ofS-C- Inc. 
Further, in our prior decision, we found that the Petitioner submitted a vague job description that 
provided little detail about the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day tasks. We emphasized that the 
Petitioner did not substantiate the Beneliciary' s claimed subordinates with payroll or state tax 
documentation and further determined that the Petitioner's 2014 IRS Form 1120 did not reflect 
salaries and wages paid to the his three claimed subordinates, Despite our conclusions, the 
Petitioner resubmits the same vaguely stated job duties and does not offer new facts to warrant 
reopening the issue of whether the Beneliciary would act in a managerial or executive capacity in the 
United States. 
Lastly, we also dismissed the appeal noting that the Petitioner did not submit a comprehensive list of 
duties specific to the Beneficiary's former managerial or executive capacity abroad. The Petitioner 
does not address this ground for dismissal on motion, submit the Beneliciary's missing foreign 
duties, or provide other evidence relevant to his foreign employment. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not provided new facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements 
of a motion to reopen. 
II. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsidering 
the prior decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Mauer ofS-C- Inc., 10# 1227649 (AAO May 4, 2018) 
3