dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 16, 2023 In Re: 29096691 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, an importer and exporter of clothing and footwear, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its chief executive officer under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U .S.C. 
§ l 101(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 the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, and we 
dismissed the Petitioner 's subsequent appeal of that decision. The matter is now before us on a motion 
to reconsider. 
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 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). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
As noted above, the Director denied the petition based on a determination that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity as defined at 
sections 101(a)(44)(A) and 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. We dismissed the appeal, noting that the 
Petitioner's generic duty description for the Beneficiary did not sufficiently substantiate that he would 
have been employed in an executive-level capacity as of the date the petition was filed, and that the 
Petitioner's conflicting statements and insufficient documentation did not establish that it was 
sufficiently developed as of the date the petition was filed to support the Beneficiary in an elevated 
position where he would be primarily focused on broad goals and policies, rather than day-to-day 
operations. 1 Our prior decision is part of the record of proceedings and is incorporated herein by 
reference. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not adequately address these deficiencies and instead contests the 
correctness of our prior decision based on the assertion that both we and the Director erred by not 
treating the U.S. organization as a new office. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that both the 
Director's denial and our appellate decision were incorrect because its U.S. organization "should never 
have been evaluated under the standards of an on-going active office." 
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(1)(l)(ii)(F). We note that the Petitioner checked the box "No" 
when asked if the Beneficiary was coming to the United States to open a "new office" in Section 1, 
No. 12 of the Form 1-129 L Classification Supplement. In addition, the Petitioner noted in a 
parenthetical next to this question: "Office in U.S. has been operating for over one year." 2 As the 
Petitioner did not seek treatment as a new office at the time of filing, it does not warrant treatment 
under the new office regulations. Therefore, we and the Director did not err by declining to evaluate 
the U.S. organization as a new office. 
Moreover, the Petitioner does not directly address the conclusions we reached in our prior decision. 
It generally objects to the denial of the petition and subsequent dismissal of its appeal, claims that the 
Petitioner and Beneficiary are eligible for the requested benefit, and asserts that the petition should 
have been approved based on the evidence of record. The Petitioner does not, however, provide 
reasons for reconsideration or demonstrate that we misapplied the law or USCIS policy in our 
dismissal of its appeal. Therefore, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not meet the requirements 
stated at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for 
reconsideration of our prior decision. As the motion does not meet all the requirements of a motion 
to reconsider, it must be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 Because the Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity on appeaL we 
restricted our analysis to whether the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive caparty. 
2 The U.S. company was established as a limited liability company in California in 2020. The instant petition was 
filed in June 2022. 
2