dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20811861 
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 : JUN . 03, 2022 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an import/export business, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as the corporate president of its new office 1 in the United States under the L-lA 
nonirnrnigrant classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding the record did not establish 
that: I) the Beneficiary completed one continuous year of qualifying employment abroad during the 
three years preceding the filing of the petition and 2) his employment abroad was in a managerial or 
executive capacity . The Petitioner later filed an appeal that we dismissed on the same grounds . The 
matter is now before us again on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the Petitioner's motions. 2 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may only grant a motion that meets these criteria and establishes eligibility for the 
requested benefit. 
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 . 
2 We will dismiss the motions on the basis that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established grounds to reopen or 
reconsider our prior determination that the Beneficiary was not employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
Since this identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner 's motions , we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
its motion arguments with respect to whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad for one continuous year in the three 
preceding the date the petition was filed. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not 
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L­
A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible) . 
In our prior appeal decision, we agreed with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. We pointed 
to the Beneficiary's foreign duty description and determined that it was generic. We stated that the 
Petitioner had provided little detail and supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's 
performance of qualifying managerial or executive level tasks abroad. Further, we indicated that the 
Beneficiary's foreign duty description did not include percentages of time he devoted to his different 
duties. Therefore, we concluded that it did not demonstrate the proportion of time the Beneficiary 
spent on managerial or executive-level duties as compared to non-qualifying operational tasks. We 
also noted that the Petitioner did not submit a foreign organizational chart and that it did not provide 
duty descriptions for the foreign entity's employees. In addition, we discussed the fact that the 
Petitioner had submitted conflicting assertions as to the members of the foreign employer's 
organizational structure on the record. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends we were mistaken to conclude that the Beneficiary was not 
employed abroad in an executive capacity and it provides copies of foreign employer invoices, bills 
of lading, and bank statements dating from 2018 through 2020. 3 The Petitioner emphasizes that many 
of the foreign employer invoices submitted on motion are signed by the Beneficiary in his capacity as 
president and contends this additional documentation demonstrates the executive-level nature of his 
employment abroad. 4 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient new evidence to demonstrate that our prior decision to 
dismiss the appeal was incorrect and to establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
For instance, in dismissing the appeal, we emphasized that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient 
detail and supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's asserted primary performance 
of qualifying executive-level duties, namely, those related to the broad goals and policies of the 
organization. We noted that the Petitioner did not provide details or documentation to corroborate the 
Beneficiary's qualifying executive-level duties he abroad, such as the contracts the Beneficiary 
negotiated, corporate policies he created, financial resources he managed, or marketing expansion he 
designed. Likewise, we stated that the Petitioner did not articulate or provide supporting 
documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's management and oversight of subordinates abroad, 
expense proposals or fonding requests he approved or denied, or final hiring or personnel dismissal 
issues he decided. The additional evidence submitted on motion does little to address this noted lack 
of detail and supporting evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's executive-level duties. The 
Petitioner must resolve ambiguity in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
3 The Petitioner indicated on the record that the Beneficiary was employed with the foreign employer from July 1, 2016, 
until the date the petition was filed on July 1, 2019. 
4 On motion, the Petitioner only asserts that the Beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity; therefore. we will not 
analyze whether he was employed in a managerial capacity. "Executive capacity" means an assignment within an 
organization in which the employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
of the organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, the 
board of directors. or stockholders of the organization. Section 101 ( a)( 44)(B) of the Act. 
2 
The foreign employer invoices submitted on motion, many signed by the Beneficiary, and the bills of 
lading from 2018 through 2020 do little to provide additional insight into his executive-level tasks 
abroad. Similarly, copies of the foreign employer's bank records from this same period, none of which 
reflect the Beneficiary's performance of executive-level duties, are not probative in demonstrating his 
claimed qualifying role abroad. 
In fact, this evidence and the Petitioner's assertions on motion only leave additional uncertainty as to 
whether he primary performed executive-level duties abroad. For instance, the Petitioner states on 
motion that the Beneficiary was tasked with deciding "what the [ foreign employer] chooses to ship," 
"signing off on all [ emphasis added] bills of lading," "contracting and securing the relevant parties to 
each sale," and "facilitating the transfer of goods through [his] comprehensive knowledge of 
international logistics and shipping operations." Similarly, the Petitioner indicates on motion that the 
Beneficiary was responsible for deciding "how to secure supply" and "how to ship or move product," 
emphasizing his responsibility for these duties "every day" or they would risk "having the wrong 
product distributed by the wrong vendor to the wrong purchaser." The Petitioner further states that 
the Beneficiary was the "sole individual responsible for the vetting of each [emphasis added] sale." 
In sum, these statements by the Petitioner on motion, along with the numerous invoices signed by the 
Beneficiary, reflect his substantial involvement in non-qualifying operational level tasks abroad, 
indicating his responsibility for handling the logistics of every sale and shipment completed by the 
foreign employer. 
As we noted in our prior decision, the fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does 
not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in an executive 
capacity within the meaning of section 101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this 
classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" executive in nature. Sections 
10l(A)(44)(B) of the Act. The Petitioner does not sufficiently indicate in its descriptions of the 
Beneficiary's foreign duties what percentage of time he allocated to specific tasks or categories of 
tasks; namely, how much time he spent handling the logistics of individual sales and shipments abroad, 
as opposed to being engaged in high level decision making related to general goals and policies. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not remedy this material deficiency with a comprehensive duty 
description reflecting the time he devoted to each of his tasks, nor does it provide details and 
supporting documentation to substantiate his performance of qualifying executive-level tasks, beyond 
the provided evidence indicating that he signed most of the foreign employer's invoices. Indeed, the 
foreign employer invoices provided on motion are more suggestive of the Beneficiary's direct 
involvement in all of the day-to-day operational matters of the foreign employer, rather his focus on 
the general goals and policies of the organization and his delegation of non-qualifying operational 
tasks to claimed subordinates. As such, we are still unable to determine whether a majority of the 
Beneficiary's duties were non-qualifying administrative or operational tasks or primarily executive­
level duties. See Republic ofTranskei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 
In addition, in dismissing the appeal, we stated that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence 
to demonstrate the foreign employer's organization structure as of the date the petition was filed, and 
thus, the Beneficiary's place therein. We further indicated that the Petitioner had provided conflicting 
descriptions of the foreign employer's organizational structure. On motion, the Petitioner provides no 
3 
additional documentary evidence to overcome these material deficiencies; for this reason alone, the 
motion to reopen should be dismissed. 
Instead, on motion, the Petitioner states that the foreign employer's business is "highly contractual" 
and "not subject to fixed arrangements." The Petitioner further indicates that the foreign employer 
has "maintained some longer-term employees," but notes that the foreign business involves the hiring 
of "numerous contractors and cash-offer positions." The Petitioner also asserts that the foreign 
employer could not "possibly by done by a single individual" and states that the job duties of its 
employees "can vary depending on available contracts and business needs." 
However, the Petitioner's assertions on motion ignore the nature of our review. In determining 
whether a given beneficiary's foreign duties will be primarily executive, we consider the petitioner's 
description of the beneficiary's foreign job duties, the foreign employer's organizational structure, the 
duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees abroad, the presence of other employees abroad to 
relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the foreign business, and any 
other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business 
abroad. 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). 
As such, at minimum, the Petitioner should have provided a foreign organizational chart, job duties, 
and other evidence of its foreign employees, and how they relieve the Beneficiary from performing 
non-qualifying operational tasks, as of the date the petition was filed. Similarly, even if there was 
some "flux" in the foreign organizational chart and the duties of its employees after this time, the 
Petitioner could have provided documentary evidence to substantiate the foreign employer's 
organizational structure at the time of its response to the Director's RFE. Likewise, the same could 
be said for the time of the appeal, and now, in support of the current motion to reopen. However, in 
each case, the Petitioner has refused to sufficiently explain and document the foreign employer's 
organizational structure, the duties of its foreign employees, how they supported the Beneficiary in an 
executive capacity, and how they relieved him from primarily performing non-qualifying operational 
tasks. In fact, as we have noted, the additional evidence on motion only further indicates the 
Beneficiary's primarily involvement in non-qualifying operational tasks abroad related to all its sales 
and shipments. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted new documentary evidence to establish 
that our prior decision to dismiss its appeal was incorrect and to demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for the requested benefit. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Therefore, the motion to reopen must be 
dismissed. 
II. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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). 
We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested 
immigration benefit. 
4 
For similar reasons set forth in the prior section, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion 
to reconsider. As discussed, in our prior decision we determined that the Beneficiary's foreign duty 
description was generic and stated that the Petitioner had provided little detail and supporting 
documentation to substantiate his performance of qualifying executive level tasks abroad. Further, we 
indicated that the Beneficiary's foreign duty description did not include percentages of time he devoted 
to his different duties, and therefore, did not demonstrate the proportion of time he spent on executive­
level duties as compared to non-qualifying operational tasks. We also noted that the Petitioner did not 
submit an organizational chart specific to the Beneficiary's foreign employment as of the date the 
petition was filed, or thereafter, nor did it provide duty descriptions for the foreign entity's employees. 
However, in each case, the Petitioner does not articulate why our conclusions were inconsistent with 
applicable law or policy based on the evidence on the record at the time of appeal. In fact, the 
Petitioner relies almost exclusively on the new evidence provided on motion, specifically foreign 
employer invoices, bills of lading, and bank records, which as we discussed at length in the prior 
section, do not establish that the Beneficiary acted primarily in an executive capacity abroad. As such, 
the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider, and it must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5