dismissed L-1A Case: Construction Equipment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 4RR-E-I- CORP 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 7, 2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, described as an exporter of construction equipment, seeks to continue 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)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity. We dismissed the subsequent appeal and affirmed the Director's decision. The matter is 
now before us on a motion to reopen. 
On motion, the Petitioner makes references to managerial and executive capacity as it cites to section 
101(a)(44)(b) ofthe Act, which defines the term "executive capacity.'' and states that the Beneficiary 
assumes "a key managerial" position in which she will ''direct management" and ·'establish policies" 
of the organization. The Petitioner also offers additional documents in support of the motion. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as 
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. § 1 03.5(a)( 1 ). 
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. 
§ 1 03.5(a)(2). We interpret "new facts'' to mean facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on 
motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding. which includes the original 
petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence docs not 
Matter of 4RR-E-I- Corp 
constitute "new facts."' We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A petition that involved a new office must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status, evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
In dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we determined that the Petitioner provided a deficient job 
description that used broad and ambiguous terminology to account for nearly half of the 
Beneficiary's time. We also noted that several ofthe Beneficiary's job duties were indicative of non­
qualifying functions and we questioned who would perform the Petitioner's administrative tasks 
given that none of the positions of its administrative department had been filled when the petition 
was filed. We further found that the record lacked sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary would oversee a staff of supervisory, professional. or managerial subordinates and that 
the Petitioner did not specifically identify an essential function to support the Petitioner's alternative 
claim that the Beneficiary would assume the role of a function manager. In addition, we determined 
that despite claiming that it exports construction equipment the Petitioner did not provide evidence 
to show that it engages in these business activities. In making this determination we pointed to the 
Petitioner's acquisition of real estate assets and the lack of evidence to show that it had employees 
who would perform duties related to real estate activities. 
On motion. the Petitioner provides a job duty breakdown that is nearly identical to the ones provided 
earlier in support of the petition and in response to the Director's request for evidence. The only 
distinction between the current job duty breakdown and those previously submitted is that the new 
job description provides an hourly time allocation, while the two prior job descriptions conveyed the 
time allocations using a percentage breakdown. 
The Petitioner continues to make vague claims on motion regarding the proposed position, stating 
that the Beneficiary would "bring together the creative team to work on each account. supervise[] 
their work, set[] standards for the work ... , and coordinate the various teams to assure that each 
account is serviced adequately .... " The Petitioner does not identify the members of the "creative 
team" or establish that it employed such a team at the time of filing. The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe. 25 I&N Dec. 
1 We note that the Petitioner has resubmitted a number of documents that it previously submitted either prior to the 
denial or in support of the appeal. While we have reviewed and considered all of the evidence submitted in support of 
the instant motion, only those documents that were not previously submitted will be specifically addressed in this 
decision. 
2 
Matter of 4RR-E-I- Corp 
369, 3 76 (AAO 201 0). Further, despite our pointing to ambiguous information concerning the nature 
of the Petitioner's business activities, the Petitioner does not provide clarifying information that 
would allow us to understand what accounts the "creative team., would service within the scope of its 
business. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary will spend the "majority of her time coordinating the 
work of this office and the established clients, reviewing its quality and conformity to [the Petitioner] 
and administering the department staff." However, the Petitioner does not provide specific job duties 
that the Beneficiary would perform in order to "coordinat[e] the work of this office" or '"administer[] 
the department staff'; nor does the Petitioner provide basic information about its business activity to 
help identify its target client base. While the Petitioner provides a market research study for "20 16-
17" in which it identified itself as ·'a Florida-based company engaged to [sic] the management and 
rental of fully furnished apartments and houses," it also provided its 2016 tax return, complete with 
Schedule K, which identifies the Petitioner as a business engaged in the wholesale of lumber and 
"other construction materia[!]." The Petitioner must resolve this incongruity in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ol Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner neither addressed nor provided evidence on motion to resolve the above-described 
inconsistency. This lack of information precludes a meaningful understanding of the products or 
services the Petitioner intends to provide and the recipients of those products or services. Further, as 
indicated in our prior decision, the lack of evidence establishing the nature of the Petitioner's 
business activity hinders our ability to conduct an effective assessment of its reasonable needs and 
whether it would have the ability to meet those needs while employing the Beneficiary in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. 
In addition, we find that the Petitioner's claim that "[g]ood managerial skills are needed for the 
important coordination and scheduling functions,'' requires clarification. This statement's vague 
reference to "the important coordination and scheduling functions" leads us to believe that the 
Beneficiary's role within the organization is somehow related to these functions. However, the 
Petitioner does not expressly state whether the Beneficiary would be tasked with managing these 
functions, nor does it explain how coordination and scheduling relate specifically to the Petitioner's 
revenue generating activities such that would lead to the conclusion that coordination and scheduling 
are indeed essential functions of the organization. Without this critical information we cannot 
conclude that the Beneficiary would assume the role of a "function manager," which is a term that 
applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but 
instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See 
section 101 (a)( 44 )(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Lastly, while we acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of an updated organizational chart in 
support of this motion, we note that the only new information the new chart provides is the addition 
of a "maintenance'' position that would be subordinate to the operations manager. However. as with 
the administrative manager, administrative assistant, accounting, and purchase assistant positions, the 
3 
Matter of 4RR-E-I- Corp 
' 
newly added "maintenance" position is also vacant and thus, its addition does not contribute to a 
clearer understanding of the Beneficiary's job duties or her role in the petitioning organization. 
We find that the Petitioner's submissions in support of the motion do not address all of the 
deficiencies discussed in our prior decision and thus they do not overcome our prior finding that the 
Petitioner did not establish that at the time of filing it could support the Beneficiary in a managerial 
or executive position. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or established 
eligibility for the requested benefit. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of 4RR-E-I- Corp, ID# 744668 (AAO Dec. 7, 2017) 
4