dismissed L-1A Case: Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-E-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 26, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an exporter of appliances and other goods, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as its general manager 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
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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity as claimed. 
The Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal, which we dismissed also determining that the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. In addition, we 
further concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that it had a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's former foreign employer. 
The Petitioner then filed a motion to reopen, which we denied; however, we withdrew our previous 
determination that the Petitioner did not establish that it had a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's former foreign employer. 
The matter is now before us again on a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motion 
to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
Matter of T-E-, Inc. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us is whether our previous decision to deny the Petitioner's motion to reopen was 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy and incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of that decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
In denying the motion to reopen, we concluded that the evidence submitted by the Petitioner was not 
relevant to establishing the Beneficiary's eligibility at the time the underlying petition was filed in 
December 2016, as it submitted evidence relevant to the time after the date the petition was filed. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). We also noted that the record did not include corroborating evidence of the 
Petitioner's staffing levels and structure at the time the petition was filed and we indicated that it did 
not address the specific deficiencies discussed in our appeal decision. Further, we determined that a 
revised position description provided for the Beneficiary with the motion to reopen was vague and 
non-specific and lacked sufficient detail as to the actual duties he would be performing as of the date 
the petition was filed. 
In a brief provided with the current motion to reconsider, the Petitioner contends that we were mistaken 
in our previous decisions and asserts that the Beneficiary's position "meets the criteria of [a] 
managerial position." The Petitioner points to Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO 
Apr. 14, 2016) and contends that consistent with this decision we did not consider "the totality of the 
record and weigh all relevant factors." The Petitioner further asserts that we "overlooked the 
preponderance of the evidence." The Petitioner states that our appeal decision of July 31, 2018 "should 
be reconsidered and reversed." 
The Petitioner's assertions in the instant motion to reconsider are not sufficient to demonstrate that 
our February 12, 2019 denial of the motion to reopen was based on an incorrect application oflaw and 
policy. As noted in our previous decision, the Petitioner submitted approximately 30 exhibits dating 
from 2017 and 2018, or relevant to the time after the date the petition was filed in December 2016. 
Again, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have 
been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
As such, the evidence provided by the Petitioner with the previous motion to reopen was not relevant 
to determining the Beneficiary's eligibility as of the date the petition was filed. As such, our denial 
of the motion to reopen on this basis was consistent with the regulations. 
Further, we concluded that the Beneficiary's expanded duty description submitted with the motion to 
reopen was vague and non-specific and did not demonstrate the actual duties he would be performing 
as of the date the petition was filed. We concur with our previous determination specific to the 
Beneficiary's expanded duties, as this duty description was indeed vague and the Petitioner submitted 
little documentation to substantiate his daily qualifying managerial tasks as of the date the petition was 
filed. The duty description included several generic duties that could apply to any manager acting in 
any industry and they provided little insight into his actual day-to-day managerial tasks. For instance, 
the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail or document "strategic plans" the Beneficiary executed on, 
"short and long term plans" he implemented, "new regulations" he put into operation, or "new 
investments" he arranged. Likewise, it did not credibly articulate or document "negotiations" the 
Beneficiary completed, "new alliances to increase international business" he finalized, "financial 
2 
Matter of T-E-, Inc. 
decisions" he made, "innovating techniques" he implemented, "company policies and procedures" he 
updated, or "incentives and promotions plans" he designed. Specifics are clearly an important 
indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise 
meeting the definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. 
v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Therefore, we 
conclude that our previous determination that the Beneficiary's expanded duties were overly vague 
was correct and consistent with law and policy. 
On motion, the Petitioner emphasizes that we did not consider "the totality of the record and weigh all 
relevant factors" and that we "overlooked the preponderance of the evidence." We disagree. In our 
previous decision in response to the motion to reopen we stated that the record remained "devoid of 
corroborating evidence of the company's staffing levels and structure at the time of filing" and noted 
that the submitted evidence did not address the specific deficiencies discussed in our previous appeal 
decision. As such, contrary to the Petitioner's current assertion on motion, we did consider the totality 
of the Petitioner's operations and its staffing levels and correctly noted that the new evidence it 
submitted with the motion to reopen was not relevant to the Beneficiary's eligibility as of the date the 
petition was filed. 
In addition, we also previously issued an appeal decision folly discussing the totality of the evidence 
and concluding that the Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance evidence the Beneficiary's 
managerial capacity, including evidence of wages paid to employees in 2016, an organizational chart, 
or material information regarding his claimed subordinate employees, such as their job titles, duties, 
and qualifications. We concluded in that appeal decision that the totality of the evidence did not 
support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary would primarily perform managerial duties. 
Therefore, we disagree with the Petitioner's assertion that we failed to consider the totality or 
preponderance of the evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient reasons to demonstrate that our previous decision to deny 
the motion to reopen was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of that decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, 
the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reconsider the proceeding. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofT-E-, Inc., ID# 517317 (AAO Aug. 26, 2019) 
3