dismissed L-1A Case: E-Commerce

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23193939 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 28, 2022 
The Petitioner, an e-commerce and frame store business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as its chief financial officer under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S .C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) . The 
L-1 A 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 Petitioner did not 
establish , as required , that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
in the United States. The Petitioner appealed that decision, asserting that the Beneficiary's U.S. 
employment would be in an executive capacity . We dismissed the appeal, affirming the Director's 
determination that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive 
capacity . The Petitioner has filed, and we have dismissed, five subsequent motions . The matter is 
now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance 
of evidence. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361; see also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must ( 1) state the reasons for reconsideration; 
(2) establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or U.S . Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy; and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on 
the evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). In this case, the prior decision is our decision dated May 12, 
2022, in which we dismissed the Petitioner's previous motion to reconsider. The issue before us is 
whether the Petitioner has established with the current motion that our prior decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. Therefore, although the Petitioner also requests that 
we review the underlying basis for denial of its petition and dismissal of its appeal, they are not 
properly before us on motion because we did not reach them in prior decision. 
A. Procedural History 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal of the Director's decision on October 10, 2018, and the Petitioner 
has previously filed four motions to reconsider and one motion to reopen, which we also dismissed. 
The Petitioner's third motion was untimely filed, and we dismissed it on that basis, citing the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(]). 1 The Petitioner's fourth motion, a motion to reconsider our 
dismissal of the late third motion, was also dismissed. In that decision, citing the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l), we noted that USCIS may excuse the untimely filing of a motion to reopen if the 
petitioner demonstrates that the delay was reasonable and beyond its control. In this case, however, 
the Petitioner had not demonstrated, or even asserted, that the untimely filing of its motion to reopen 
in January 2020 was reasonable or beyond its control. 
In its fifth motion, the Petitioner stated that it believed the 33-day filing period applicable to motions 
would be measured in business days rather than calendar days, and therefore the untimely filing of its 
third motion should be excused. We acknowledged this explanation but dismissed the motion to 
reconsider, concluding that the Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish that the late filing of its 
motion to reopen was reasonable or beyond its control. 2 Further, we determined that the Petitioner's 
motion to reconsider did not establish how we misapplied law or USCIS policy by dismissing the 
fourth motion, which lacked any explanation for the untimely filing of the motion to reopen. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
As noted, this matter is now before us again on a motion to reconsider. In the brief submitted in 
support of the motion, the Petitioner does not contend that our decision to dismiss its fifth motion was 
based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
In fact, the Petitioner concedes that the late filing of the previous motion was "a mistake on our part." 
The Petitioner requests a "one time relaxation" of the regulatory requirements applicable to motions 
and asks that we reconsider its contention that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive 
capacity in the United States. In this regard, it repeats assertions made in its first and second motions 
to reconsider, and we which have already addressed in dismissing those motions. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reconsideration, a 
petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly 
1 We dismissed the Petitioner's second motion to reconsider on December 11, 2019, and the Petitioner filed its third motion 
on January 17, 2020. Thus, it did not meet the 33-day filing deadline prescribed in 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.S(a)(l) and 103.8(b). 
2 The pertinent regulations do not state whether the 33-day filing period refers to calendar days or business days, but the 
term "day" normally means any calendar day and does not exclude weekend days or holidays. We concluded that, absent 
specific language in the regulations stating that "days" referred only to business days and not to Saturdays. Sundays. and 
holidays, it was not reasonable for the Petitioner to assume that the filing period was measured in business days rather than 
calendar days. 
2 
completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause 
for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the Petitioner's motion, which does not allege any misapplication oflaw or USCIS policy in our 
prior decision, does not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider stated at 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, the motion must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3