dismissed L-1A Case: Event Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16665886 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-IA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 13, 2021 
The Petitioner, an event management company, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its general manager under the L-IA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. 1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(l 5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-IA 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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The Director granted the Petitioner's combined motion to reopen and reconsider 
and affirmed the denial of the petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal as well as its subsequent 
motion to reconsider. 2 The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to 
reopen and reconsider. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner has offered new relevant facts 
supported by credible evidence or made legal arguments establishing that our decision to dismiss the 
prior motion to reconsider was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy with respect 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary 's behalf which was approved for the peood 
May 7, 2015 to May 6, 2016. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States through 
a parent, branch , affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(1 )(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3 )(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an 
executive or managerial position . 
2 In our prior decision assessing the Petitioner 's motion to reconsider , we determined that in our decision on appeal we 
incorrectly decided to treat the Director 's prior decision as a motion dismissal when , in fact , the Director granted the 
motion and affirmed the denial of the petition, "thereby effectively incorporating the June 2017 denial into theMay2018 
[motion] decision." We therefore addressed the issues raised in the initial denial. However, because the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility, we concluded that the petition would remain denied . 
to the facts of this case. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing (in this case, May 2016) and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 e.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the 
prior adverse decision. As such, we will examine any new facts and supporting evidence that pertain 
to the dismissal of the prior motion and we will consider arguments establishing that our prior decision 
was based on a misapplication of law or users policy. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
As noted above, a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding 
and be supp01ied by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
In the matter at hand, the Petitioner does not offer new facts and restates, verbatim, portions of the 
brief that was submitted in support of the prior motion. As such, the Petitioner has not met the 
requirements of a motion to reopen and pursuant to 8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), the motion must be 
dismissed. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
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 
users 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. 8 e.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(3). As discussed below, this motion does not meet these requirements. 
In our decision, we identified notable evidentiary deficiencies concerning the Beneficiary's job 
description. Namely, we noted that although several job duties were listed both in the original and in 
a subsequent job description, the Petitioner provided inconsistent time allocations, increasing the time 
spent on certain duties while decreasing time spent on others, adding new duties that had not been 
listed in the original job description, and assigning 45% of the Beneficiary's time to working with a 
purchasing manager and sales manager, yet providing no evidence to show that either of these 
positions had been filled in May 2016, when this petition was filed. 
We also questioned whether the Petitioner was adequately staffed at the time of filing and described 
what we deemed to be "very significant and material changes to the Petitioner's claimed organizational 
structure." Namely, we pointed to inconsistencies between the Petitioner's claim in 2017 about 
employing an administrative manager, a wedding planner, and a procurement coordinator since April 
2015 and the Petitioner's 2015 tax return, which shows that no salaries were paid in 2015, and its 2016 
quarterly tax returns, which showed that the Beneficiary was not paid prior to March 2016 and that 
the procurement coordinator and administrative manager were first compensated in June 2016, while 
payments to a wedding coordinator did not start until the last quarter in 2016. 
In addition, we pointed to the Petitioner's flawed reasoning and lack of an authoritative source to 
supp01i the asse1iion that the Beneficiary's subordinates are professional employees because their 
2 
"duties are professional." 3 Furthermore, we observed that the "the petitioning entity appears to be a 
side venture that the Beneficiary operates from a convenience store owned by a separate company, 
I I which the Beneficiary incorporated in late 2015." We noted that instead of addressing 
the Director's concerns aboutl ts relation to the petitioning entity, the Petitioner merely asked 
the Director to "disregard"! I despite the Petitioner's unsolicited submission of documents 
regarding this very entity. 
In sum, we provided a comprehensive analysis of the Petitioners claims and submissions and explained 
precisely how we reached an adverse conclusion. 
On motion, the Petitioner seeks to diminish the significance of the inconsistencies between the two 
percentage breakdowns, focusing on the "nanow margin" of one inconsistency, while refening to 
other inconsistencies as evidence that the Petitioner had undergone "some restructuring and 
reorganization" or that added job duties were merely "minor adjustments intended to add further 
elaboration and description." However, the Petitioner does not claim or establish that we 
misinterpreted the facts or misapplied the law or USCIS policy in assessing the evidence. Likewise, 
although the Petitioner now seeks to address the Director's concern regarding its business relationship 
with I I the Petitioner has not established that our finding concerning its prior failure to address 
this issue was inconect. 
As indicated earlier, the review of any motion is nanowly limited to the basis for the prior adverse 
decision. In this instance, the prior adverse decision was our September 2020 decision, where we 
determined that the Petitioner failed to address certain evidentiary findings made by the Director. The 
time to address the Director's findings was either on motion before the Director or on appeal. The 
purpose of the instant proceeding, however, is to cone ct any factual or legal errors made in the decision 
that immediately preceded the motion that is cunently before us, not to revisit matters the Petitioner 
had the opportunity to address in earlier proceedings. Although the Petitioner claims that "the Service 
has never fully considered the record as a whole" and has overlooked "the scope and nature of the 
business," the Petitioner has not specifically identified a factual or legal error in our prior decision. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration 
and has not overcome the basis for dismissal of the prior motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3 To determine whether the Beneficiazy manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate 
positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(kX2) 
(defining"profession" to mean "any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent 
is the minimumrequirementforent1yintothe occupation"). Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act states that "[t]he term profession 
shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementazy or 
secondazy schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
3