dismissed L-1A Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9564003 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 31, 2020 
The Petitioner, which intends to operate a construction business, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as the general manager of its new office1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. 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 that the record did not 
establish, as required that: (1) the Petitioner had secured sufficient physical premises to house its new 
office; (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; and (3) 
the new office would support a managerial or executive position within one year. We summarily 
dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal because it did not include a statement that specifically 
identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. In addressing our summary dismissal of its appeal, 
the Petitioner states that the employee who filed the company's appeal "negligently omitted many facts 
of our petition" and requests that the matter be reopened. The Petitioner also contests the Director's 
decision, noting that "the director denied the petition without any reasonable reasons." 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
I. LAW 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements and show 
proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). A motion to reopen must state new facts 
and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that 
satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
1 The term "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(1)(1)(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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner has either submitted new facts supported by 
documentary evidence sufficient to warrant the reopening of its appeal, which we summarily dismissed. 
The regulations provide that an officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal 
when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The Petitioner timely filed its appeal of the Director's adverse decision in May 2019 and later submitted 
a half-page brief in which it stated: 
Actually previously the Ll-A visa application CASE: I I was already 
approved by USCIS after [the Beneficiary] came to the USA. In order to save time to go 
back to apply for visa, we re-applied for the L-lA visa for [the Beneficiary] with the hope 
that he can stay in the USA to change the visa from B1/B2 to Ll-A and start to work 
immediately. Unfortunately, the second application was denied. 
This statement does not identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the 
appeal. The record reflects that the Director was aware of the previously approved petition. In fact, the 
Director had advised the Petitioner in a request for evidence that the current petition is a separate 
adjudication, noting that the Petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, that this is a petition for "new employment."2 Each nonimmigrant petition filing is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. USCIS has clarified that "an 
adjudicator's fact-finding authority ... should not be constrained by any prior petition approval, but 
instead should be based on the merits of each case." USCIS Policy Memorandum, PM-602-0151, 
Rescission of Guidance Regarding Deference to Prior Determinations of Eligibility in the Adjudication 
of Petitions for Extension of Nonimmigrant Status (Oct. 23, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/ 
default/ti I es/USC IS/Laws/Memoranda/2017 /2017-10-23Rescission-of-Deference-PM6020151.pdf. 
The Petitioner did not argue on appeal that the Director erred by adjudicating this new petition on its 
merits. Further, the Petitioner's appeal did not address the three substantive grounds for denial stated 
in the Director's decision. The petition was denied because the Director determined that the evidence 
did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, that 
the new office would support a managerial or executive position within one year, or that the new office 
had secured physical premises. As the Petitioner did not discuss these issues in its appeal or identify an 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the Director, we summarily dismissed the 
appeal. 
2 We note that the Petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129 that the most recent petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary 
was ~----~which was approved on July 12, 2018. However, USCIS records indicate that the Petitioner 
filed an L-1A classification petition on his behalf on July 30, 2018, which was denied on November 5, 20181, I 
I I. The instant petition was filed on December 31, 2018. At Part 4 of the Form 1-129, the Petitioner responded "No" 
where asked if the Beneficiary has ever been denied the requested classification. The regulations provide that "[f]ailure to 
make a full disclosure of previous petitions filed may result in a denial of the petition." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(2)(i). 
2 
On motion, the Petitioner concedes that its company secretary "omitted many facts of the petition" when 
filing the appeal. Further, the Petitioner has not submitted any new facts or evidence in support of its 
motion to reopen that would overcome our reasons for summarily dismissing the Petitioner's appeal. 
We will not consider the newly submitted motion brief discussing the merits of the petition absent 
evidence that we summarily dismissed the appeal in error. The Petitioner has not provided such evidence 
or shown that the matter should be reopened. Accordingly, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3