dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-S-A- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 22, 2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a food supply and restaurant equipment import and export business, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the president of its new office under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(L). The L-1A 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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The California Service Center Director denied the petition. 1 The Petitioner appealed the denial 
which we dismissed, finding that the Petitioner had not established that: (1) the Beneficiary had 
been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity or that his employment with the 
qualifying foreign entity had been on a full-time basis for at least one year in the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition; and (2) the new office would support a managerial or executive 
position within one year after approval of the petition. 
The matter is before us on a motion to reconsider. In its motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts 
that it has satisfied the requirements to establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. We 
will deny the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as, for 
instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the 
correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(l ). 
A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must ( 1) state the reasons for reconsideration; 
(2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
1 The Director found, in part, that the Petitioner did not submit evidence that the Beneficiary's services are to be used for 
a temporary period and that it intended to transfer him abroad upon completion of his temporary stay. We withdrew the 
Director's determination with respect to this issue only. 
.
Matter of A-S-A- Inc. 
incorrect application of law or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence ofrecord at the time ofthe initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Beneficiary's Employment Abroad in a Managerial Capacity 
In our previous decision , we affirmed the Director ' s finding that the record did not demonstrate that 
and the Petitioner have a qualifying relationship ; 
thus, his duties for could not be used to establish the Beneficiary 's employment abroad in a 
managerial capacity. 2 On motion, the Petitioner reiterates that the Beneficiary owns an interest in 
with his brothers and asserts that the partial ownership by the same set of brothers shows 
they have common ownership, so the Beneficiary's position with "should be extended to 
the Petitioner, in fact." The Petitioner does not identify any pertinent precedent decisions that 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's 20 percent minority interest in and his 100 percent 
interest in the Petitioner establish a qualifying relationship between the two entities , as defined by 
the pertinent regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii) . Accordingly , the Beneficiary ' s work for 
may not be considered in the managerial 
capacity analysis. 
The Petitioner cites the same unpublished decisions referenced on appeal in support of its alternative 
claim on motion that (1) the Beneficiary performs in a managerial capacity for 
, and (2) has a qualifying relationship with the Petitioner. 
We discussed 
the lack of applicability of the non-precedent decisions in our appeal decision. 
Additionally, we found in our previous decision that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence 
to establish that most non-managerial activities for the foreign employer were assigned to 
subordinate staff. We also determined that the Petitioner had not specified the amount of time the 
Beneficiary dedicated to his duties at . thus raising questions as to whether the Beneficiary 
was employed full-time at The Petitioner does not address these 
deficiencies in the record and does not include pertinent precedent decisions to establish that our 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law of policy and that our decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision, on motion. The Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary , more likely than not, is employed in a full-time managerial capacit y 
for a qualifying 
foreign entity in this matter. 
B. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
In our previous decision, we found that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of the petition or that 
2 The Beneficiary owns a I 00 percent interest in the Petitioner. The Petitioner contends that is one of several 
different entities that are all partially owned by the same set of brothers , including the Beneficiary , and thus is a 
qualifying organization . The Petitioner asserts in the alternative that it has demon strated that the Beneficiary held a 
managerial position with the " parent compan y." 
2 
Matter of A-S-A- Inc. 
the new office would grow to the point where it would support a managerial or executive position 
within one year. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that it has submitted detailed job duties for the new office and that 
it fully expects that once the operations of the business are in full force, it will in fact be able to 
support a manager or executive, within one year of visa approval. In our previous decision we 
thoroughly detailed the deficiencies in the record regarding the Beneficiary's proposed position, the 
Petitioner's staffing, and its business plan. The Petitioner does not address these deficiencies on 
motion. Rather, the Petitioner disagrees with our analysis and notes that it has been waiting for the 
outcome of this petition to commence extensive operations. The Petitioner does not offer a cogent 
analysis of how our decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial 
decision. 
The Petitioner also asserts on motion that it has established the eligibility requirements for this visa 
petition by a preponderance of the evidence; that is that its claims are "more likely than not" or 
"probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative 
value, and credibility) of the evidence. Matter (~f Chawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 
2010); Matter ~f E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the limited evidence in the 
record did not support a realistic expectation that the Petitioner would be staffed and able to support 
the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of the 
petition. The Petitioner does not offer any argument supported by pertinent precedent decisions to 
establish otherwise. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our prior decision was incorrect at the time of that decision. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ~fA-S-A- Inc., ID# 433656 (AAO June 22, 2017) 
3