dismissed L-1A Case: Grocery Store

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 9, 2023 In Re: 27203224 
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. § 1101(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 in July 2019, concluding 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. The Director also questioned the Petitioner's 
eligibility to file a "new office" petition on behalf of the Beneficiary, 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-1 A new office petition. 2 We dismissed the 
Petitioner's appeal as well as its three subsequent motions, the fust of which was a motion to 
reconsider followed by two combined motions to reopen and reconsider. In our most recent decision, 
we dismissed the motion to reopen, concluding that the Petitioner's latest "business proposal," which 
is dated September 2022, did not establish that the Petitioner's franchise plan existed in 2018, when 
this petition was filed, and therefore the proposal does not serve as evidence of the Petitioner's 
eligibility at the time of filing. 3 We also dismissed the 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 we issued it in August 2022. The matter is now before us again on another combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider, the Petitioner's fourth 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.,..(1.._)(._l..._)(_ii..._)(_F._).___--, 
2 The record reflects that the Petitioner's former affiliate , I Lwhich 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 
I 
employment was denied by the Director of the California Service Center and we dismissed its appeal of that decision on 
12018. The Petitioner in this matter was incorporated one week later on! !2018. 
3 The claim that the Petitioner is a new office because its business model include s plans to franchise its operations was 
raised for the first time on appeal. The Petitioner relied on the claimed new business model as a means of distinguishing 
its operations from those of its former affiliate and thereby qualifying the Petitioner as a new office . 
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. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 e.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 e.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 e.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). 
Here, the Petitioner provides a statement summarizing the definition of "new office" along with 
photocopied excerpts from the users Policy Manual, general information posted by users online 
regarding the L visa classifications, and 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1) - (2), which contains relevant 
definitions and general filing criteria for intracompany transferees. All of this information was 
previously available and does not offer new facts. Thus, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to 
establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. Because the Petitioner has not established new 
facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. 
Further, regarding the Petitioner's contentions in the current motion to reconsider, the Petitioner 
merely reargues facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions. See e.g., 
Matter o_f 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"). Namely, the Petitioner argues, as in prior filings, 
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 e.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. 
2