dismissed L-1A Case: E-Commerce

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 14, 2024 In Re: 30064155 
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 (CFO) under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U .S.C. 
§ l 10l(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 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, seven subsequent motions. 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 
motions. 
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). A motion to reopen must state new facts and be 
supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
regulatory 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). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . 
In our August 3, 2023, decision dismissing the Petitioner's seventh motion, we concluded that the 
Petitioner neither claimed nor established that our decision to dismiss its sixth motion was based on 
an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, as required under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3). We further 
observed that its brief in support of the motion to reconsider repeated assertions that it had made in 
support of its previous motions and which had already been addressed in our decisions dismissing 
those motions. 
In its brief submitted in support of the current motion, the Petitioner again concedes, as in prior 
motions, that the late of filing of its third motion was "an unintended oversight," and requests "a one­
time exception for the late submission of motions." The Petitioner also requests that we reconsider its 
claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in an executive capacity as defined 
at section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B) and submits a separate statement in 
support of this claim. However, it does not contend that our decision to dismiss its seventh motion 
was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy as required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), 
nor does it indicate that it is submitting new facts that would warrant reopening, as required by 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). In fact, the Petitioner does not specifically address our decision dated August 3, 
3023 in its brief Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reopen or 
reconsider. 
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"). Although the Petitioner requests that we consider a supplemental 
statement in support of its claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity, that 
issue is not before us in this eighth motion. 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. 
2