dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF BL TB-A- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision ofthc 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 14,2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l-!29, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a plastic materials and products importer and exporter, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its operation manager under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
l 0 I (a)( 15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § II 0 I (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, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
under the extended petition. The Petitioner subsequently appealed the Director's decision and we 
dismissed the appeal. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. The 
Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence in support of its claim that the Beneficiary will 
perform primarily managerial or executive duties under the extended petition. Upon review, we will 
deny the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal tiling requirements (such 
as, for instance, submission of a properly completed Form l-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with 
the correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that we based our decision 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. A petitioner must support its motion to reconsider with a 
1 The Petitioner previously tiled a "new oftice" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
April 21, 20\6, until March 6, 2017. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate. or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to 
support an executive or managerial position. 
Maller of BLTB-A-Inc. 
pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provtswn, or statement of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security policy. 
8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANAL YSlS 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts, evidence, or 
arguments to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity, as defined at section l0l(a)(44) of the Act. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing (in this case, 
February 2017) and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § l03.2(b)(l). 
For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. 
While the current motion includes newly submitted evidence and citations to case law, the Petitioner 
has not explained the significance of the new evidence or specified how we incorrectly applied the 
law and USClS policy to the facts presented. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper 
cause for reopening or reconsideration. 
A. Previous AAO Decision 
In dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we determined that the Petitioner provided an overly general 
job description that did not sufficiently explain the nature of the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks or 
establish that she would perform primarily manage~ial or executive duties. We also discussed the 
staffing of the operations department headed by the Beneficiary, which includes an operations 
assistant and an assistant, and determined that the Petitioner had not established that either 
subordinate employee occupies a managerial, supervisory, or professional position. Therefore, we 
determined that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary would be more than a first-line 
supervisor of non-professional personnel, and could not qualify as a personnel manager. 
We also reviewed the record to determine whether the Beneficiary qualified, in the alternative, as a 
function manager, but found insurticient evidence to establish to what extent her subordinates 
perform the non-qualifying duties associated with the Petitioner's operations department and the 
supply chain functions it handles. We noted that the Petitioner provided a vague position description 
for one subordinate, and no position description for the other. Finally, we determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the organizational structure in place at the time of filing was 
sufficient to support an executive-level position in the operations department or to allow the 
Beneficiary to allocate her time primarily to the broad goals and policies of the organization, rather 
than the day-to-day duties of her department. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and five exhibits in support of its motion to reopen. The 
first two exhibits include a company profile for the Petitioner's parent company and evidence of its 
2 
.
Maller of BLTB-A- Inc. 
contracts with major corporations. While these exhibits provide additional inforn1ation regarding the 
nature and scope of the parent company's operations, they are not directly relevant to our analysis of 
the Beneficiary ' s position within the U.S. company. 
The Petitioner also submits a contract , proposal , and debit note ·(which includes the Beneficiary's) 
name, as evidence that she was responsible for engaging a third-party to complete impact and 
vibration quality testing for its ' container products. However, this evidence does not 
provide further insight into the nature of the Beneficiary's regular day-to-day duties and it is unclear 
what her involvement in this process was 
as her name appears only on the "Attn :" line on the debit 
note. 
The Petitioner 's fourth exhibit provides example s of tasks performed by an employee named 
who the Petitioner states is the Beneficiary ' s subordinate within the operations department. 
The attached documents , dated from May to October 2017, are described as "business 
correspondence with customer s, handling shipment pre-arrival notices and quotations" and are 
intended to show that "carries out day-to-day [duties] at the operation department." The 
· Petitioner did not employ at the time of tiling/ and did not mention her name previously. 
Also, it is unclear which position she holds in the operations department or. which employee , if any, 
she replaced. 
In dismissing the appeal, we noted that the Petitioner submitted an overly general position for the 
"operation assistant" within the Beneficiary's department (then held by , and no 
position · description for the subordinate "assistant" position held by As such, we could not 
determine how work was distributed within the· department or to what extent the two subordinate 
employees would relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties . The newly 
submitted evi~ence of duties performed by an employee who was likely hired after the denial of the 
petition, and whose job title has not been provided, is insufficient to overcome the deficiencies we 
noted in our decision. We did not question whether the Beneficiary's subordinate staff would 
perform some day-to-day dutie s of the departm ent. Rather, we noted that the Petitioner's general 
descriptions of the work performed by the Beneficiary and her staff made it difficult to discern to 
what extent the Beneficiary would be able to spend her time on managerial duties. Further , as noted , 
the Petitioner did not provide evidence that either of the Beneficiary's subordinate s held a 
managerial , supervisory, or professional position, and the new evidence does not addre ss this issue. 
The final exhibit include s photographs of the Beneficiary meeting with management staff of a 
logistics compai1y, and copies of invoices from three other companie s that provide 
logistics services for the petitioner. All of this · evidence also post-date s the tiling of the petition. 
While the photographs support the Petitioner ' s claim that the Beneficiar y is the senior employee in 
the operations department with authority to negotiate for services , this new evidence · does not 
provide any further insight into the nature of her day-to-day duties. 
2 The Petitioner provided evidence that it employed a at the time of filing, but the record indicates that this 
individual uses the name " and was hired for the position of operations assistant in January 2017. 
3 
Mauer of BLTB-A- Inc. 
We now turn to the Petitioner's brief, in which it acknowledges our finding that the Beneficiary's 
duties were insufficiently detailed. The Petitioner adds some additional information to the job 
description it had provided on appeal. 
However, some of these new details do not appear to be consistent with its previous claims regarding 
the functions performed by the operations department. For example, on appeal, the Petitioner stated 
that the Beneficiary spends 20% of her time directing the operations department, which "handles the 
supply chain function and system, which entails the planning and management of all activities 
involved from sourcing and procurement, including purchasing materials, inventory planning, to all 
logistics management activities .... " On motion, the Petitioner states that this portion of her time is 
spent directing lower level staff in devising a quality control manual and system for manufactured 
products, adhering to certification programs, monitoring equipment used to ship, store, and deliver 
products to customers, impact testing, and reporting of testing data. On its face, this new 
information appears to indicate that the operations department performs an entirely different set of 
departmental activities, and it does not assist in establishing the nature of the Beneticiary's actual 
day-to-day duties at the time of tiling. 
The Petitioner also reiterates that the Beneficiary spends a total of 30% of her time "assisting the 
president" and "to the overall operation of the company." Here, the Petitioner notes that due to 
increased turnover, the company requires the Beneficiary to be fluid with job duties, but it does not 
add additional detail as to what these duties would entail. Overall, the additional details included in 
the job description submitted on motion do not overcome the deficiencies noted in our prior 
decision. Therefore, despite its submission of new facts and evidence, the Petitioner has not shown 
proper cause to reopen the proceeding. 
C. Motion to Reconsider 
In support of its motion to reconsider, the Petitioner cites to Matter olZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 
2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016), and asserts that we erred by focusing on size of the Beneficiary's 
subordinate staff and the small size of the U.S. company, but did not consider the role of the 
petitioning company in tem1s of the broader corporate organization. The Petitioner notes that "[the 
Beneficiary's] duties as an Operations Manager supports the company's expansion efforts in the 
global arena to become a leader in the production and distribution of bulk container packaging." 
The Petitioner maintains that the Beneticiary, like the beneficiary in Matter ol Z-A-. can rely on her 
"subordinates in the United States and at the foreign entity" to "carry out the majority of the day-to­
day tasks that are required." 
As noted above, the record continues to contain insufficient evidence of the nature of the 
Beneficiary's specific duties, the day-to-day duties of the Beneficiary's subordinates at the time of 
filing, and the overall purpose and activities of the operations department she manages. Further, the 
Petitioner has not previously claimed that the Beneficiary has subordinates at the foreign entity and 
does not elaborate on this new claim, nor has it previously placed any emphasis on the Beneficiary's 
senior role within the wider qualifying organization. Therefore, the Petitioner's claim that the tacts 
of this case are very similar to those in Maller olZ-A- are not persuasive. 
4 
Mauer of BLTB-A- Inc. 
In dismissing the appeal, we considered the totality of the evidence including the factors mentioned 
in Matter of Z-A-, which include the Beneficiary's job duties along with the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, 
and any other evidence contributing to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. See id. The Petitioner has not shown how we misapplied USCIS policy or this adopted 
decision to the facts presented. 
Finally, the Petitioner cites Gasboy Tex .. Inc. v. Upchurch, 2004 WL 396257 (N.D. Tex.), in which 
the U.S. District Court did not give us due deference because the administrative record was 
"shoddy" and haphazardly assembled and because we did not address a letter submitted by the 
petitioner. The Petitioner does not establish how the facts of that case are analogous to those 
presented here. Additionally, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a U.S. 
circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a U.S. district court in matters 
arising within the same district. Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). 
The Petitioner has not established that our prior decision misapplied law or policy or that it was 
incorrect at the time of that decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for 
reconsideration. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the proceeding or 
proper cause for reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of BLTB-A- Inc., ID# 1143967 (AAO Mar. 14, 2018) . . 
5