dismissed L-1A Case: Convenience Store

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 12, 2023 In Re: 28157467 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner seeks to operate a convenience store and to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the 
general operations director of its new office 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 
U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(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) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, and 2) 
the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States within 
one year of the approval of the petition. The Petitioner filed an appeal that we dismissed. The 
Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider, both of which we dismissed. The 
Petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider that we dismissed as untimely. The matter is now before 
us again on a motion to reconsider. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner requests that we consider the previously dismissed Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion as timely filed, indicating that it "had no intention to fil[e] the [motion] late." The 
Petitioner states that they read online articles indicating that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) had extended the time to file Forms I-290B by sixty days and that they "failed to 
understand that the Form I-290B was only given an additional 30 days to respond." 
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(l)(l)(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. 
In our prior dismissal decision, we stated that we issued a decision on December 22, 2020, and that 
the Form I-290B filed after this decision was received at the filing location on March 15, 2021, or 83 
days after the decision. We concluded the motion was untimely, since users guidance specific to the 
coronavirus pandemic at the time indicated that Forms I-290B must be received within 60 days of the 
unfavorable decision ( or 63 days, taking into account service by mail). The regulations do not allow 
the filing of a motion to reconsider more than 30 days after the decision in which it seeks to reconsider, 
or in this case 63 days after the date of the decision pursuant to coronavirus guidance issued at the 
time of our dismissal in December 2020. In contrast to a motion to reopen, it is noteworthy that the 
regulations provide no exception to the requirement to file a timely motion to reconsider. See 8 e.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(i). 
On motion, the Petitioner does not dispute the correctness of our prior determination, acknowledging 
that they were mistaken about the users filing extension related to Forms I-290B during the 
coronavirus pandemic at the time the motion was filed. As such, as a preliminary matter, the Petitioner 
has not articulated how our prior decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy based 
on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. Furthermore, even if the 
regulations allowed us to excuse the lateness of the March 2021 motion to reconsider, the Petitioner 
has not articulated in support of the current motion what we are to reconsider with respect to the merits 
of the matter. Therefore, the motion will be denied as it does not meet the regulatory requirements of 
a motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2