dismissed L-1A Case: Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2024 In Re: 29827567 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a distribution center for watches and other merchandise, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as logistics manager of its new office under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C . § 1101(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. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal 
and three later motions to reopen or reconsider. The matter is now before us on combined motions to 
reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition in April 2017, concluding that the 
record did not establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the new office will support a managerial or executive 
position within a year of approval of the petition. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that decision in November 2017. In that decision, we 
agreed with the stated grounds for denial, and also noted several additional issues in the record, 
concerning the Beneficiary's location during the period of her claimed employment abroad and 
discrepancies in several documents submitted in support of the petition. 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, which we dismissed in September 2018, stating that the 
Petitioner had not overcome the stated grounds for denial of the petition and dismissal of the appeal. 
The Petitioner then filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which we dismissed in March 
2020. In dismissing that motion, we observed that the Petitioner contested the original grounds for 
denial of the petition but did not address or overcome other disqualifying issues that we later raised. 
Subsequently, the Petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider. We dismissed that motion in February 
2021, stating: "the Petitioner has been repeatedly apprised of its evidentiary shortcomings in prior 
decisions, and has not remedied them or provided any evidence that the appropriate standard of proof 
was not applied." 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and reconsider, the Petitioner's fourth motion 
overall. 
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 .5( a )(1 )(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits materials intended to establish that the Beneficiary worked in a 
managerial capacity for the Petitioner's foreign affiliate. Specifically, the Petitioner submits copies 
of: 
• A letter dated March 2017, attributed to an executive partner of the foreign company, stating 
that the company had employed the Beneficiary as a retail manager since 201 O; 
• Purported payroll records from the foreign company, dated July 2016; and 
• The Beneficiary's resume. 
None of these materials are new to the record. The Petitioner had previously submitted all these 
documents either with the initial filing of the petition or in response to a request for evidence in April 
201 7. Because the Petitioner asserts no new facts and has submitted no new evidence, the Petitioner's 
fourth motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen and must be dismissed. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
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). 
The Petitioner's latest motion includes this passage: 
We have submitted all the supporting documents requested. We have not impeded 
USCIS in any way from validating all the supporting documents for either the U.S. 
entity or the Foreign entity. The Director states that the documents submitted on 
motion were insufficient to establish the beneficiary's year of qualifying employment 
abroad. 
The Service cites no case law or makes any reference to 8 CFR that supports their 
repeated denials of this I-129. Rather it appears that this is an intentional failure to 
recognize the legitimacy of the supporting documents without rational or good cause 
supported by case law rather than personal opinion. 
2 
The above passage is almost identical to language in the brief that accompanied the Petitioner's third 
motion. 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). A motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, 
in essence, the same brief presented previously and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in 
the prior decision. See Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). 
The Petitioner states that we determined that the Petitioner "failed to present new evidence," and that 
we did not "explain why the probative evidence [in the record] doesn't qualify." Here again, the 
Petitioner seeks to reach past its third motion to earlier stages in the proceeding. The only prior 
decision properly before us on motion is our Febrnaiy 2021 decision dismissing the Petitioner's April 
2020 motion. That motion was a motion to reconsider, which included no new evidence. Therefore, 
our 2021 decision did not discuss evidence except when describing the prior timeline of the case. In 
that context, we noted that the Petitioner's second motion, filed in October 2018, contained "no new 
evidence." 
In earlier decisions in this case, we identified specific shortcomings relating to the Petitioner's 
evidence and explained why the Petitioner had not overcome those issues. Our 2017 appellate decision 
identified several issues that raised serious doubts about the authenticity and credibility of the 
Petitioner's evidence. Our 2021 dismissal of the Petitioner's third motion included this passage: 
The evidence in each case is judged by its probative value and credibility. Each piece 
of relevant evidence is examined and detenninations are made as to whether such 
evidence, either by itself or when viewed within the totality of the evidence, establishes 
that something to be proved is probably true. Truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone, but by its quality. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77 
(Comm'r 1989). In this case the Petitioner has been repeatedly apprised of its 
evidentiary shortcomings in prior decisions, and has not remedied them or provided 
any evidence that the appropriate standard of proof was not applied. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that our previous decision dismissing the combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS 
policy. 
Repetition of arguments that predate our 2021 decision does not establish error in that decision, and 
at this late date we will not consider arguments about earlier decisions until and unless the Petitioner 
overcomes the dismissal of the third motion. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew. 
Also on motion, the Petitioner observes that our 2021 decision included a reference to "Form I-140, 
Nonimmigrant Petition for an Intracompany Transferee," although the correct form number is I-129, 
not I-140. The Petitioner states: "If the Service is unable to distinguish the case they are arguing this 
creates doubt that the officer reviewing the case is cognizant of whether their decision was for an 
I-129, or for an I-140." This reference was erroneous, as the Petitioner observes, but the erroneous 
reference appeared only in a heading before the body of the decision. That heading correctly referred 
to the petition as relating to a nonimmigrant classification, and the first paragraph of substantive text 
correctly stated that the Petitioner seeks "the L-lA nonimmigrant classification" on the Beneficiary's 
3 
behalf. The Petitioner does not establish that the error in the form number, outside the narrative text 
of the decision, influenced or prejudiced the outcome of that decision. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, we will dismiss 
the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4