dismissed L-1A Case: Computer Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 12, 2024 In Re: 33769713 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a company intending to operate a computer consulting business, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as vice president of its new office under the L-lA nonimrnigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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 the record did not 
establish that: (1) a qualifying employer continuously employed the Beneficiary abroad for at least 
one year in the three years preceding the date the petition was filed; (2) a qualifying employer 
employed the Beneficiary outside the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; and (3) the 
new office would be able to support a managerial or executive position within one year of an approval 
of the petition. The Petitioner later filed an appeal that we dismissed. The matter is now before us on 
a motion to reopen. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In denying the Petitioner's appeal, we agreed with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not 
establish the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 1 We reasoned 
that the duties submitted for the Beneficiary were generic, including no specific discussion of the 
foreign employer 's business or his actual daily tasks. We also emphasized that the Petitioner did not 
submit a full organization chart, but only an employee list without chains of authority. We further 
pointed to a submitted partnership agreement reflecting no responsibilities for the Beneficiary and an 
We reserved the Director's two o ther bases for denying the petition since this issue was dispositive. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues 
that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofl-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 51 6, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
1 
Indian tax document not showing his signature, leaving question as to its assertion that he was 
responsible for managing the foreign employer's financial operations. In addition, we indicated that 
the Petitioner submitted little information and independent evidence to substantiate his asserted 
managerial or executive capacity within the foreign employer, despite the Director requesting this 
additional evidence in the request for evidence (RFE), including a more detailed duty description 
including his actual daily tasks. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts we erred in our conclusion that it did not submit new information or 
evidence related to the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad. The Petitioner indicates that it 
submitted the Beneficiary's resume, Indian income tax documentation, foreign employer audited 
financial statements, and a partnership agreement. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is 
responsible for overseeing the company's accounting, including reviewing financial and profit and 
loss statements, balance sheets, cash flow, and employment, tax, and sales reports. It further indicates 
that the Beneficiary has discretionary authority to hire, promote, dismiss or demote any subordinate 
employee. The Petitioner states that these tasks "require a minimum of 5 years experience and a 
Bachelor Degree [sic] and are far beyond the scope of a generic worker of even a supervisor," further 
noting that this "far exceeds the requirements to serve as a Supervisor or Manager." 
It is noteworthy that the Petitioner still does not provide a detailed explanation of the Beneficiary's 
daily duties abroad including percentages of time he spent on each task, evidence directly requested 
by the Director. The Petitioner also vaguely stated that the Beneficiary reports to a president and that 
branch managers are supervised by the vice president. It still does not provide a comprehensive 
foreign organizational chart listing all employees and chains of authority, as requested by the Director 
and discussed in our prior decision. The Petitioner further provides no additional supporting 
documentation reflecting him acting in his asserted role abroad as vice president. The Petitioner 
continues to not submit this required supporting documentation even after it was requested by the 
Director and directly discussed in our prior decision. Failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § l 03.2(b )( 14). 
Further, the Petitioner's generic statement that the Beneficiary's position requires a bachelor's degree 
is not relevant to establishing his eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner bears the burden of 
demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior 
motion, but only refers to evidence we have already reviewed and discussed in our prior decision. 
Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, 
we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, 
therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2