dismissed L-1A Case: Grocery Store

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 21, 2023 In Re: 29321360 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner operates a grocery store and seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as general 
manager and chief executive officer of its claimed new office under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees.1 Immigration and Nationality Act section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 California Service Center denied the petition in July 2019. 2 We dismissed the 
Petitioner's appeal as well as its four subsequent motions, the first of which was a motion to reconsider 
followed by three combined motions to reopen and reconsider. We dismissed the most recent motion, 
concluding that the Petitioner did not meet motion to reopen requirements because it provided no new 
facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion; we also dismissed the prior motion to 
reconsider, concluding that the Petitioner did not identify any error of law or policy or establish that 
our previous decision was incorrect when it was issued in January 2023. The matter is now before us 
again on another combined motion to reopen and reconsider, the Petitioner's fifth motion. 3 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
1 A petitioner seeking treatment as a new office must establish that it is an organization which has been doing business in 
the United States for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2,..0..._)(..._1....)(___ii..,.)(___F..._)._____, 
2 The record reflects that the Petitioner's fonner affiliate, I I, which was owned by the same foreign 
parent company as the Petitioner, filed a new office petition on the Beneficiary's behalf; that petition was approved and 
valid from November 16, 2016, until October 31 , 2017. The affiliate's subsequent petition to continue the Beneficiary 's 
employment was denied by the Director of the California Service Center and we dismissed its appeal of that decision on 
August 9, 2018. The Petitioner in this matter was incorporated one week later, on August 15, 2018. In the decision 
denying that petition, the Director questioned the Petitioner 's eligibility to file a "new office" petition, noting that an 
affiliate of the Petitioner, which operated the same retail establishment at the same location and no longer exists, had 
previously employed the Beneficiary under another L-lA new office petition. The petition was denied based on the 
conclusion that the Petitioner had not established that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity 
within one year of the petition 's approval. 
3 In a separate filing (with receipt number IOE0921326925) , the Petitioner filed an identical motion to reopen and 
reconsider and offered the same supporting evidence. 
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 prior 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). The scope of a motion is limited to 
"the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). 
Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it pertains to our latest decision 
dismissing the motion to reopen. Likewise, we will only consider legal arguments that pertain to our 
latest decision dismissing the motion to reconsider. We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter o_fCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 
464, 4 73 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
We farther note that an affected party may file a motion to reopen or reconsider our dismissal of their 
motion. Under our current regulations, there is no limit on the number of motions that an affected party 
may file in a proceeding. However, a motion is not an opportunity to restate previously considered 
and rejected arguments. Nor will rearguing the facts and issues raised on appeal present a proper basis 
for a motion to reconsider. See e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to 
reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal 
and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). 4 
Here, the Petitioner provides a statement from its vice president, who reiterates that claim that he 
attended company meetings regarding plans to franchise and the claim that the Petitioner qualifies as 
a new office because it has a new federal tax identification number. Thus, the Petitioner has not 
provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. Accordingly, there is no 
basis for reopening of our prior decision. 
Further, regarding the current motion to reconsider, the Petitioner again argues facts and issues that 
we considered in our previous decisions. See e.g., Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) 
("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief 
presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). 
Namely, the Petitioner argues that it qualifies as a new office and that our prior decision to the contrary 
was incorrect. Because the Petitioner has not established that our prior 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, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a 
motion to reconsider at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4 See also Matter ofMedrano. 20 l&N Dec. 216, 219 (BIA 1990, 1991) ("'Arguments for consideration on appeal should 
all be submitted at one time, rather than in piecemeal fashion."). 
2