dismissed L-1A Case: Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 12, 2024 In Re: 32883298 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, 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)(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 Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, 
and that the new office would support a managerial executive position within a year of approval of the 
petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and four 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
In our initial appellate decision, we agreed with the Director 's stated grounds for denying the petition, 
and we cited additional issues that cast doubt on the credibility of the Petitioner's evidence and the 
Beneficiary's eligibility, including evidence that the Beneficiary had been in the United States as an 
F-1 nonimmigrant student for more than two years immediately before the petition's December 2016 
filing date. This prolonged stay in the United States did not involve authorized employment for the 
Petitioner or any related entity, and therefore amounted to a disqualifying interruption in the 
Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). We dismissed the 
Petitioner's subsequent motions because they did not meet the requirements of motions to reopen or 
to reconsider. Most recently, we dismissed the Petitioner ' s fourth motion in February 2024. See In 
Re 29827567 (AAO Feb. 27, 2024). 
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)(l)(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 states that it is "presenting ... as new evidence" a printout of the "Summary" 
page of the "Financial Managers" entry in the Occupational Outlook Handbook, published by the U.S. 
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Petitioner asserts that this printout "serves as 
evidence of the beneficiary's qualification to serve as a Financial Manager." The Petitioner also stated 
that it "previously submitted evidence of the beneficiary's specialized knowledge, training, education 
and skills to serve as the Retail Manager for the foreign business." The Petitioner does not establish 
that the titles "retail manager" and "financial manager" are interchangeable. 
More relevant here, our prior decision, in February 2024, did not address the question of whether the 
Beneficiary was qualified to work as a financial manager. Our February 2024 decision was based 
entirely on procedural deficiencies in the Petitioner's fourth motion. As we stated in that decision: 
"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." The new 
evidence is intended to address earlier decisions, and does not establish that our February 2024 
decision was in error. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
newly submitted evidence does not establish proper cause to reopen the proceeding. We will dismiss 
the motion to reopen. 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). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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 of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). 
In dismissing the Petitioner's fourth motion, we acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of an 
employment verification letter, dated March 2017; purported payroll records, dated July 2016; and the 
Beneficiary's resume. Noting that the Petitioner had previously submitted all these documents, we 
stated: "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)." 
On motion, the Petitioner acknowledges our conclusion that "the evidence ... isn't new," but does not 
establish, or claim, that this conclusion was in error. 1 Instead, the Petitioner asserts that "lending 
institutions ... around the world accept these documents as evidence of employment." This assertion 
is not relevant to the conclusions and determinations in our February 2024 decision, and therefore it 
1 We discussed all these materials in our November 2017 decision, dismissing the Petitioner's appeal. 
2 
does not establish proper cause for reconsideration. In our initial appellate decision, we did not 
conclude that the types of evidence the Petitioner submitted inherently lack credibility. Rather, we 
noted that they contained discrepancies and inconsistencies which cast their reliability into question. 
See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). In subsequent decisions, we concluded that the 
Petitioner has not overcome these issues. 
The Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's claimed position abroad as a retail manager entailed the 
required level of responsibility, and that, in the United States, "[t]he beneficiary will be responsible 
for preparing the financial statements," required for "any successful business." This attempt to reach 
back to the merits of the underlying petition does not identify any error of fact, law, or policy in our 
February 2024 decision. Therefore, the Petitioner's latest assertions about the Beneficiary's claimed 
duties abroad and in the United States do not show proper cause for reopening the proceeding. 
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. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, 
and has not established errors of fact, law, or policy in our February 2024 decision, we have no basis 
to reopen or reconsider our prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, 
the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3