dismissed L-1A Case: Construction & Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 4RR-E-I- CORP 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 17,2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which is described as a construction equipment exporter and real estate rental and 
management company, 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 IOI(a)(I5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(I5)(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 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 under the extended petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and denied its 
subsequent motion to reopen. The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard 
reviewing the motion to reopen, and reached a conclusion that was incorrect as a matter of law. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must 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), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reconsider must establish that we based our decision on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at 
the time of the decision. A petitioner must support its motion to reconsider with a pertinent 
precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested 
immigration benefit. 
Maller of 4RR-E-I- Corp 
II. ANALYSIS 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that, in denying the motion to reopen, we did not consider all of the 
evidence submitted, failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard, and reached a 
decision that was arbitrary based on the totality of the evidence. The Petitioner maintains that the 
evidence submitted in support of the motion to reopen was sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that we incorrectly applied the 
law and users policy to the facts presented or established eligibility for requested benefit. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
A. Previous AAO Decisions 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner had provided a deficient job description 
for the Beneficiary that included a combination of overly broad duties and duties that were not 
consistent with the definitions of managerial or executive capacity. 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 support its alternative claim 
that she would be employed as 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. We acknowledged documentation indicating that the Petitioner had 
acquired real estate assets, but found a lack of evidence to show that it had employees who would 
perform duties related to property rental or other real estate activities. 
In denying the Petitioner's motion to reopen, we acknowledged the Petitioner's newly submitted 
evidence and explained why such evidence was insufficient to overcome our previous determination. 
We fourid that the Petitioner's brief and new evidence did not sufficiently clarify the nature of the 
Beneficiary's duties, the nature of the company's business activities, or the ability of the Petitioner's 
three subordinate workers to relieve the Beneficiary from significant involvement in the non­
managerial, day-to-day operations of the company. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner's primary claims on motion are that: (I) we erroneously determined that the Petitioner 
did not submit new evidence in support of the motion to reopen; and (2) we erroneously determined 
that there are inconsistencies in the record regarding the nature of the Petitioner's business. The 
Petitioner also contends that our decision to deny the motion to reopen was arbitrary and capricious 
and cites case law addressing the preponderance of the evidence standard. 
The Petitioner's claim that we overlooked new evidence submitted in support of its motion to reopen 
is incorrect. We did note that some evidence accompanying the motion had been submitted 
previously and declined to address that evidence in our decision. However, we acknowledged and 
addressed all newly submitted facts and evidence, which included the Beneficiary's slightly revised 
2 
Malter of 4RR-E-I- Corp 
job description, an updated organizational chart with a new proposed subordinate position, a new 
statement from the Petitioner, the Petitioner's 2016 tax return, and a 2016-17 business plan. We 
explained why the new evidence was insufficient to overcome our decision to deny the appeal. The 
Petitioner has not addressed all of those findings in the current motion. 
One of those findings was that the evidence submitted on motion did not fully clarify the nature of 
the Petitioner's business activities at the time of filing. The Petitioner asserts that the documentation 
provided in support of the prior motion established that the company is engaged in "the management 
and rental of fully furnished apartments and houses." However, the fact remains that the Petitioner 
stated on the petition that it exports construction equipment, and stated on its 2016 tax return that it 
is engaged in the wholesale of lumber and other construction materials. The record also contains 
photographs of the Petitioner's warehouse which suggested that the company may be selling and 
distributing goods other than construction equipment and materials. Finally, the Petitioner explained 
that it sought to diversify its activities in early 2016 when it purchased two real estate properties. 
We find that the record remains ambiguous regarding the nature and scope of the Petitioner's 
activities. The Petitioner's tax return shows $4 76,593 in gross receipts or sales in 2016, but the 
Petitioner reported no rental income, no purchases, and no inventory. Because we cannot determine 
the Petitioner's source(s) of income or the nature of its activities, we cannot evaluate its reasonable 
needs in terms of staffing or the ability of the three subordinate employees to relieve the Beneficiary 
from significant involvement in the day-to-day operations of the business. 
Even if the Petitioner is now claiming that real estate was the sole line of business at the time of 
tiling, the record does not show how it was able to relieve the Beneficiary from performing non­
qualifying duties. The Petitioner does not claim to have any employees who perform duties 
associated with real estate management or property rental activities. 
As we addressed in our decision dismissing the appeal, the job descriptions submitted for the 
Beneficiary's subordinate employees were incongruous with the size of the business and its actual 
staffing levels. For example, the Petitioner state'il that its customer service employee "prepares and 
conducts technical/product presentations and demonstrations" and "provides feedback to marketing 
and product engineering teams for future product enhancements." The Petitioner has not explained 
why it would require an employee to perform these duties and it does not have marketing or product 
engineering personnel. The operation manager's duties also refer to oversight of production and 
marketing personnel that do not exist within the company. 
The Petitioner re-submitted the subordinates' job descriptions in support of the motion to reopen and 
did not attempt to clarity the full extent of the activities conducted by the company and the specific 
nature of the duties performed by the Beneficiary ·and her subordinates within the context of those 
activities. The Petitioner has not addressed these deficiencies in the current motion to reconsider. 
Instead, the Petitioner emphasizes that it submitted sufficient evidence to show that the company is 
engaged in real estate management and rental activities without discussing the lack of evidence to 
show that it has employees engaged in this line of business. 
3 
Ma/ler of 4RR-E-I- Corp 
The Petitioner correctly asserts that, except where a different standard is specified by law, a 
• petitioner must prove eligibility for the requested immigration benefit by a preponderance of the 
evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Under the preponderance of 
the evidence standard, the evidence must demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is "probably true." 
!d. at 376. We examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be 
proven is "more likely than not" or probably true. 
Our previous decisions discussed the deficiencies in the Beneficiary's job description, the 
deficiencies in the job descriptions provided for the subordinate employees, and the lack of evidence 
to support the Petitioner's claim that it is engaged in either construction equipment export and/or real 
estate activities. In applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, we explained why certain 
evidence was lacking in probative value, and noted the absence of documentation that would have 
assisted in corroborating the Petitioner's claims, such as documentation of business transactions 
demonstrating the source of its income. The Petitioner has not established that we applied an 
incorrect standard of review or that our decision was arbitrary and capricious based on the evidence 
presented. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that our prior decision misapplied law or 
policy or that it was incorrect at the time of that decision .. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown 
proper cause for reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of 4RR-E-I- Corp, !D# 1274790 (AAO May 17, 2018) 
4