dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8854326 
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 : WL Y 7, 2020 
The Petitioner, claiming to operate as an international trade organization, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees who are coming to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L) . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the extended petition and that the employment would be temporary. We declined to 
address the second ground and dismissed the appeal based on the finding that the Petitioner had not 
established that it would employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity . 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we find that the Petitioner does 
not meet the motion requirements. Therefore, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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. A motion to reconsider must be supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted 
decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
or Department of Homeland Security policy. 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In support of the instant motion, the Petitioner asserts that we incorrectly relied on its staffing size as 
the "decisive factor" without taking into consideration the Petitioner's reasonable needs as required 
by section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. We disagree and point to our comprehensive assessment of the 
Beneficiary's job descriptions, which the Petitioner provided first in support of the petition and later 
in response to the Director's request for evidenced. Namely, we found that the Petitioner offered 
information that lacked "meaningful substantive content" and did not delineate "the actual tasks the 
Beneficiary would carry out within the context of its various business pursuits." Thus, although we 
commenced our analysis with a discussion of the Petitioner's staffing, our decision did not rest on that 
factor alone. As stated, we pointed to and elaborated on the Beneficiary's deficient job descriptions. 
However, the Petitioner does not address or acknowledge these critical evidentiary deficiencies in the 
present motion. 
Further, section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act requires us to "take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, component, or function in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization, component, or function." Although we have long interpreted the statute to prohibit 
discrimination against small or medium-size businesses, we have also consistently interpreted the Act 
to require petitioners to establish that a beneficiary's position "primarily" consists of managerial or 
executive duties, and that it has sufficient personnel to relieve a beneficiary from performing 
operational and administrative tasks. As such, although the Petitioner's reasonable needs have been 
considered, those needs do not supersede its burden of having show that the Beneficiary will be 
"primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity as required by the statute. Brazil Quality 
Stones v. Chertoff, 531 F.3d 1063, 1070 n.10 (9th Cir. 2008). 
In sum, we provided the Petitioner with a totality of the evidence analysis in which we considered not 
only the Petitioner's staffing, but also the Beneficiary's job duties within the scope of the Petitioner's 
operation. The Petitioner's contention that we did not consider its reasonable needs and relied 
exclusively on the size and salaries of its staff is not supported by the record. 
In light of the above, we find that the Petitioner's motion does not warrant reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2