dismissed L-1A Case: Gas Station/Convenience Store

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19992685 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 7, 2022 
The Petitioner, which seeks to operate a gas station and convenience store, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as general manager of its new office 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 11 0l(a)(15)(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer; (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; 
and (3) the new office will support a managerial or executive position within one year. We dismissed 
the Petitioner's appeal, and dismissed a subsequently filed motion to reopen and motion to reconsider 
based on the finding that the motion was untimely filed. 
The matter is now before us on a second motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. In support of the 
current motion, the Petitioner contends that it provided what it believed to be the correct filing fee 
with its original filing of the prior motion, and as such, the prior motion should have been accepted as 
timely filed . 
Upon review , we will dismiss the motions . 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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) . 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
The regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of 
a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Further, we note that our decision here is not a new adjudication of the underlying petition, based on 
review of the complete record. Rather, our review is limited to specific errors that the Petitioner 
identifies on motion with respect to the preceding decision. As such, our objective in this matter is to 
determine whether we correctly concluded that the Petitioner did not timely file a combined motion to 
reopen and reconsider in response to a decision that we issued on October 16, 2020. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The applicable regulations state that a motion on an unfavorable decision must be filed within 33 days 
of the date U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) mails the decision. See 8 C.F.R . 
§§ 103.5(a)(l), 103.8(b). During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, USCIS issued guidance that 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, would be accepted if filed within 63 calendar days of an 
unfavorable decision issued between March I, 2020, and October 31, 2021. No exceptions to this 
filing requirement exist for motions to reconsider. However, an untimely filed motion to reopen may 
be excused in USCIS' discretion if the record demonstrates that the delay was reasonable and beyond 
the control of the petitioner. 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
A. Relevant Facts and Procedural History 
The record contains a copy of Form I-797C, Notice of Action, notifying the Petitioner that despite 
USCIS's receipt of its combined motion on December 14, 2020, the motion was rejected because it 
was not accompanied by the appropriate filing fee . Although the Petitioner resubmitted the motion 
with the correct filing fee, these items were not received until February 8, 2021, 115 days after our 
unfavorable decision was issued. We therefore dismissed the combined motion, concluding that it 
was not received with the proper filing fee within 63 days of our October 2020 decision. 
The Petitioner contends that the initial combined motion was erroneously rejected based on 
discrepancies regarding the required filing fee. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that "USCIS sent a 
notice stating the filing fees increased" on October 2, 2020, and "USCIS failed to send any notice that 
this fee increase was later denied by a preliminary injunction halting implementation of USCIS' fee 
rule." The Petitioner asserts that its prior combined motion, initially filed within the 63-day period 
and accompanied by a filing fee of $700, should have been considered timely filed. 
The Petitioner appears to reference a USCIS policy alert, issued on September 2, 2020, revising its 
policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to align with the Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain 
Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on 
August 3, 2020, and which was due to take effect on October 2, 2020. See USCIS Policy Alert 
PA-2020-13, Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements 
Final Rule (Sept. 2, 2020), https: //www.uscis.gov /sites /default /files/document/policy-manual-
2 
updates/20200902-FeeRule.pdf The rule proposed several fee increases, including an increase in the 
Form I-290B filing fee, from $675 to $700. 
On September 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in Immigration 
Legal Resource Center et al., v. Wolf, et al., 20-cv-05883-JWS, preliminarily enjoined the Department 
of Homeland Security from implementing or enforcing any part of the USCIS Fee Schedule and 
Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements rule, and an alert notifying the 
public regarding the rule's preliminary enjoinment was appended to the policy alert. See USCIS Policy 
Alert PA-2020-13, supra at 1. The update to the policy alert, posted on the USCIS website, stated that 
while the rule is preliminarily enjoined, USCIS would use the regulations and guidance currently in 
place to adjudicate applications and petitions, and would continue to accept USCIS forms with the 
current editions and fees. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
In support of its motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits a copy of check number 12 77 in the amount 
of$700 and dated December 3, 2020, and claims that this fee accompanied the prior combined motion. 
The Petitioner asserts that because the initial motion submission was accompanied by a filing fee and 
received by USCIS within the permitted 63-day period, it was timely filed and the rejection of the 
initial submission was erroneous. While the Petitioner's explanation is acknowledged, we note that a 
form is properly filed when USCIS receives it at the location designated for filing the form, and it must 
be accompanied by the correctfilingfees. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l), (7)(ii)(emphasis added). USCIS 
rejects benefit requests that do not meet these minimum requirements, and submitting an incorrect fee, 
including missing fees or fees in the wrong amount, are reasons for rejection. See l USCIS Policy 
Manual B.6(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
The Petitioner argues that USCIS guidance was unclear with regard to the required filing fee, and 
resulted in the erroneous rejection of its motion and its subsequent dismissal. We disagree. Our 
adverse decision, issued on October 16, 2020, included the following instruction: "The Form I-290B 
website (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing location, and other 
requirements." Moreover, USCIS updated its website and policy alert to reflect that the fee rule was 
preliminary enjoined as of September 29, 2020, and that USCIS would continue to accept current 
forms and fees. Although the Petitioner argues that "USCIS failed to send any notice that this fee 
increase was later denied by a preliminary injunction halting implementation of USCIS' fee rule," 
information regarding the applicable filing fees, and current status of the fee rule, was readily available 
on the USCIS website. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown that the delay in filing the prior 
motion to reopen was reasonable and beyond its control, such that the untimely filing should be 
excused in USCIS' discretion. 
C. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must show that the disputed decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that it erroneously relied on guidance issued by USCIS regarding a fee 
increase associated with its motion, asserting that on October 2, 2020, "USCIS sent a notice stating 
3 
the filing fees increased." However, the Petitioner does not offer sufficient corroborating evidence to 
support the assertion that USCIS sent such a notice to the Petitioner as claimed. The Petitioner must 
support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Moreover, our adverse decision was issued subsequent to the rule's preliminary enjoinment. Contrary 
to the Petitioner's assertions, notice of the rule's enjoinment was published to the USCIS website, 
along with notice that USCIS would continue to accept USCIS forms with the current editions and 
current fees. Further, our adverse decision instructed the Petitioner that it should refer to the Form 
I-290B website (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) for the most current information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements if it wished to file a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner's misinterpretation of USCIS policy guidance does not show that our February 2021 
decision rejecting the prior motion as untimely was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy, 
and therefore the Petitioner's error is not good cause for reconsideration. The Petitioner, in its latest 
motion, has not shown that the prior motion was timely filed in accordance with the form instructions. 
Therefore, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted new evidence to show that the delay in filing the prior motion to 
reopen was reasonable and beyond its control, such that the untimely filing should be excused in 
USCIS' discretion. Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated any error of law or policy in our 
decision dismissing its prior motion. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4