dismissed L-1A Case: Event Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-G-E-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 28, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an event management business, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its general manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(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 record did not 
establish, as required that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
under the extended petition. The Petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and 
motion to reconsider. The Director denied the combined motion without disturbing the denial of the 
petition, finding that the Petitioner's submission did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen 
or reconsider or overcome the grounds for denial. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
Although the Petitioner's appellate brief primarily addresses the Director's initial denial decision, we 
emphasize that the Petitioner did not appeal the denial order itself, but rather the Director's subsequent 
finding that its motion did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider. 
Therefore, the merits of the denial decision, and of the underlying petition, are not before us. The only 
issue before us is whether the Director properly found that the combined motion did not meet 
applicable requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements must be denied. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). The Petitioner's motion to reopen did not include any supporting statement and was 
not accompanied by any documentary evidence. The Petitioner instead indicated that it would submit 
a brief within 30 days; however, the regulations governing motions to reopen do not allow the 
Petitioner additional time to submit supporting evidence. Therefore, the Director properly found that 
the motion did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
Matter ofS-G-E-, Inc. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that the underlying decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at 
the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider must be supported by a 
pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) or Department of Homeland Security policy. 
As noted, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider included a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
and a cover letter indicating that the Petitioner would be submitting a brief within 30 days (by August 
23, 2017). The record reflects that the Petitioner did not submit a brief or additional evidence, and as 
discussed above, the regulations governing motions do not provide the Petitioner additional time to 
submit a brief or evidence; the motion must meet the applicable requirements when filed. The 
Petitioner's motion therefore did not establish that the underlying decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy, nor was it supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, 
statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of USCIS policy. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts: 
The denial ignores and disregards the evidence the Petitioner submitted. The denial is 
incorrect on its assertions and fails to cite to the law that a Motion for Reconsideration 
does not need to prove new facts. Moreover, the denial states that no authority was 
cited which is unfounded because case law and applicable statutes supported the 
Motion to Reopen and Reconsider and were mentioned in the Motion. 
As discussed, the Petitioner's motion did not cite to any authority and instead indicated that a brief 
would be submitted at a later date. The record of proceeding does not contain a brief submitted in 
support of the motion to reopen or motion to reconsider. 
For these reasons, we find that the Director properly concluded that the Petitioner's filing did not meet 
the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. Because the Petitioner established 
no error in the denial of the motions, we will dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-G-E- Inc., ID# 2060649 (AAO Mar. 28, 2019) 
2