dismissed L-1A Case: Electronics

identifyin! , .v:ieted to 
prevent c lea.r!:.l ~nwarranted 
invasion of ,~zwmal privacj 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
ervices 
File: EAC 08 001 53 170 
 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: 
IN RE: 
QCT 1 6 2009 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
eJY wlew 
ef, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 001 53170 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
petitioner appealed this denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), and, on December 1, 2008, the 
AAO dismissed the appeal. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reconsider, in accordance with 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of its general manager 
as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Florida corporation claiming to be a 
high technology advisor and distributor of electronic parts and accessories. The beneficiary was initially 
granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office in the United States. The petitioner now seeks to 
extend the beneficiary's stay for an additional three years. 
The director denied the petition on March 18, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The AAO dismissed the petitioner's subsequently filed appeal on December 1, 2008. The AAO concurred 
with the director's decision that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition, based on the petitioner's failure to 
submit a detailed description of the beneficiary's stated duties, and its failure to establish that it employs 
sufficient subordinate staff to relieve the beneficiary from performing the day-to-day administrative and 
operational functions of the business. The AAO, referring to the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. $5 
214.2(1)(3)(iv) and 214.2(1)(14)(ii), further found that the petitioner had failed to establish: (1) that the 
beneficiary had been employed by the petitioner's claimed foreign parent company in a primarily managerial 
or executive capacity; (2) that the U.S. and foreign companies are still qualifying organizations; and (3) that 
the U.S. company was doing business for the previous year. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a brief which is nearly identical in substantive content to the brief submitted in 
support of the petitioner's appeal. Although the petitioner acknowledges the AAO's dismissal of the petitioner's 
appeal, and even acknowledges that the AAO denied the petition on multiple alternative grounds, the brief 
contains no direct reference to the specific findings made in the AAO's 12- page decision issued on December 1, 
2008. The petitioner states that "the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated 
grounds," but then goes on to recite the specific findings made by the Director, Vermont Service Center, in his 
decision dated March 28, 2008, with respect to the beneficiary's proposed employment capacity. The petitioner 
does not specifically address or rebut the findings made by the AAO with respect to the beneficiary's employment 
capacity with the foreign entity, the qualifying relationship between the petitioner and its claimed parent 
company, and the lack of evidence to establish that the petitioner was doing business during the year preceding 
the filing of the petition. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) states: 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3) states: 
EAC 08 001 53170 
Page 3 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or [US. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] policy. A motion 
to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the 
decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4) states, in pertinent part: "A motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed." 
The instant motion consists of a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and the petitioner's brief. As 
noted above, there is no reference made to the findings made in the AAO's decision and the specific 
deficiencies remarked upon therein, no new facts provided to support a motion to reopen, and no specific 
reasons stated for reconsideration. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed for failing to meet the 
applicable requirements. 
The purpose of a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider is different from the purpose of an appeal. While 
the AAO conducts a comprehensive, de novo review of the entire record on appeal, a review in the case of a 
motion to reopen is strictly limited to an examination of any new facts, which must be supported by affidavits 
and documentary evidence. A motion for reconsideration must state the reasons for consideration and be 
supported by pertinent precedent decisions establishing that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy. As such, the petitioner's previously submitted arguments based on the 
Service Center director's original decision cannot be considered "new" facts or provide a reason for 
reconsideration of the AAO's appellate decision. The AAO previously conducted a de novo review of the 
entire record of proceeding and has already addressed the arguments contained in the petitioner's brief. There 
is no regulatory or statutory provision that allows a petitioner more than one appellate decision per petition 
filed. In the present matter, an appellate decision was issued and the deficiencies were expressly stated. 
Rather, the AAO's review in this matter is limited to the narrow issue of whether the petitioner has presented 
and documented new facts or documented sufficient reasons, supported by pertinent precedent decisions, to 
warrant the re-opening or reconsideration of the AAO's decision issued on December 1, 2008. In the current 
proceeding, the petitioner has not even explicitly acknowledged the grounds stated for dismissal of the appeal, 
much less attempted to overcome them. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) requires that motions be "[alccompanied by a 
statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any 
judicial proceeding." The petitioner's motion does not contain this statement. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. €j 
103.5(a)(4) states that a motion which does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed. Therefore, 
because the instant motion does not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must also be dismissed for this reason. 
Motions for the reopening or reconsideration of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as 
petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See INS v. Doherty, 
502 U.S. 3 14, 323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding 
EAC 08 00 1 53 1 70 
Page 4 
bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the movant has not met that 
burden. The motion will be dismissed. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not 
be reopened or reconsidered, and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.