dismissed L-1A Case: E-Commerce

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 3, 2023 In Re : 27930003 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
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, six 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
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). Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii), our review 
on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision, which in this case is our decision dated October 
28, 2022 in which we dismissed the Petitioner's previous motion to reconsider. We may grant motions 
that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
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 our 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 five motions to reconsider and one motion to reopen, which we also dismissed. 
The Petitioner's third motion, a motion to reopen, was untimely filed, and we dismissed it on that 
basis, citing the regulation at 8 e.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 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l), we noted that users may excuse the untimely filing of a 
motion to reopen if the petitioner demonstrates that the delay was reasonable and 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 users policy by dismissing the 
fourth motion, which lacked any explanation for the untimely filing of the motion to reopen. 
In our October 28, 2022 decision dismissing the Petitioner's sixth motion, we noted that the Petitioner 
did not contend that our decision to dismiss its fifth motion was based on an incorrect application of 
law or users policy, as required under 8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We farther noted that it repeated 
assertions made in its first and second motions to reconsider, which we had already addressed in 
dismissing those motions. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
This matter is again before us on a motion to reconsider. In the brief submitted in support of the 
motion, the Petitioner again concedes, as in prior motions, that the late filing of its third motion was 
"a mistake on our part" and again requests a "one time relaxation" of the regulatory requirements 
applicable to motions. Although the Petitioner asks that we reconsider its contention that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States, it does not contend that 
our decision to dismiss its sixth motion was based on an incorrect application oflaw or users policy, 
as required under 8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
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 
As noted above, 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). The Petitioner's contentions in its current motion merely 
reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions. See e.g., Matter of 
O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party 
may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally 
alleging error in the prior Board decision"). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, 
the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3