dismissed L-1A Case: Goods Exportation

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-E- , INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : FEB . 12, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
. . 
PETITION: FORM 1-129,.PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORK ER 
The Petitioner, an exporter of appliances and other goods, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its general manager under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. 1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l 5)(L), 8 U.S .C. 
I 
§ 1 101 ( a)(l S)(L ). The L-1 A 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 . The 
Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal, which we dismissed .. We further found that the Petitioner 
. did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiar y's last foreign employer. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen , which includes a brief and additional evidence. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion to reopen . However, we find that the evidence submitted on 
motion is sufficient to establish that the Petitioner maintains a qualifying relationship with the 
:Beneficiary's foreign employer, and our adverse finding with respect to that issue is withdrawn. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such 
as, for instance , submission of a properly completed Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motiori, with 
the correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion . 8 C.F.R . § ~03.S(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and· be supported by document~ry evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
1 The P~titioner indicated that it was seeking to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment and requested an 
extension of L- 1 A status. However, the prior approved L-1 A petition was valid from October 29, 2012, until October 
28, 2013. The Petitioner previously filed a petition to extend his status (with receipt number which 
was denied. We dismissed the appeal that stemmed from that denial, and denied two subsequent motions. As noted in 
our previous decision, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had an approved petition eligible for extension 
at the time it filed this petition in December 2016. 
Matter ofT-E-, Inc. 
-II. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us is whether the evidence submitted in support of the Petitioner's motion includes 
new facts that warrant the reopening of the matter and which establish that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
fo _ dismissing the appeal, we considered the totality of the evidence and determined that the 
Petitioner did not provide a sufficiently detailed description of the Beneficiary's position or his 
expected day-to-day duties. We further determined that the Petitioner did not submit evidence to 
corroborate its claimed staffing levels or organizational structure at the tiine qffiling, and therefore 
did not meet its burden t0 demonstrate that it had sufficient staff in place to relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing non-qualifying operational and administrative tasks. Specifically, we observed that 
the Petitioner did not provide evidence of wages paid to employees in 2016, an organizational chart, 
or materfal information regarding the Beneficiary's claimed subordinate employees, including their 
job titles, job duties, and qualifications. We concluded that the totality of the evidence did not 
support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary would perform primarily managerial or executive 
duties. · · 
As noted, a motion to reopen must state new facts -and be supported by documentary evidence. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We inte"rpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised 
on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original 
petition. Any new facts must establish eligibility at the time the underlying petition was filed. 
The Petitioner's motion includes a brief and more than 30 exhibits. These exhibits include: the 
Petitioner's current organizational chart, which includes employees hired in· August 2018; job 
descriptions for current employees; evidence of wages paid to employees in 2018; copies of monthly 
bank statements and utility· bills· dated in 2018; miscellaneous supplier invoices from 2018; 
miscellaneous sales invoices from 2017 and 2018; photographs of the Petitioner's office and 
warehouse; a consulting agreement signed in August 2018; and various letters from local business 
managers who confirm their ongoing busin~ss relations~ip with the petitioning company.2 • 
However, this updated evidenGe cannot establish the Petitioner's and Beneficiary's eligibility at the 
time the underlying petition was filed in December 2016. 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). Evidence of hiring that occurred 
nearly two years after the date of filing does not provide proper cause to reopen the proceeding. 
Here, the record remains devoid of corroborating evidence of the company's staffing levels and 
structure at the time of filing. The submitted evidence does not ad.dress the specific deficiencies 
discussed in our previous decision. · 
2 The remaining evidence relates to the Petitioner's ownership and the <_mgoing business activities of its foreign parent 
company. As noted, we find this evidence sufficient to establish that the Petitioner is a subsidiary of the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer and that the foreign entity continues to do business as a quaiifying organization abroad. 
2 
Matter of T-E-, Inc. 
The Petitioner has also submitted a revised position description for the Beneficiary and has 
·submitted, for the first time, job descriptions for other staff employed with the company. However, 
the position description, like that submitted at the time of filing, is· vague and non-specific, and all of 
the submitted descriptions are intended to describe the duties performed by the Beneficiary and hts 
staff as of 2018. The record continues to lack a detailed -description of the actual duties the 
Beneficiary would be performing .as of the date of filing, and evidence of the company's staffing 
structure and organization at that time. 
III. CONCLUSION . 
The newly submitted evidence does not overcome all grounds for denial and establish eligibility for 
the benefit sought. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the proceeding. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. _ 
Cite as Matter. ofT-E-, Inc., ID# 22i 7799 (AAO Feb. 12, 2019) 
3_