dismissed L-1A Case: Laundry Service

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 31, 2024 In Re: 31865798 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a laundry service, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as accountant and 
general manager of its new office under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1101(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition in August 2015, concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. The Petitioner appealed that decision, and we remanded the matter for a new 
decision because the Director had not sufficiently specified the grounds for denial. 
The Director again denied the petition in March 2018, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the Beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial capacity, and that the new 
office would support a managerial or executive position within one year after approval of the petition. 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen that decision. The Director dismissed that motion in May 
2019, stating that the Petitioner had provided no new facts on motion and that the evidence submitted 
on motion does not overcome the grounds for denial. The Director also stated that government arrival 
and departure records show that the Beneficiary has been in the United States since 2007, and therefore 
he was not employed abroad from 2011 to 2014 as the Petitioner had claimed. 
The Petitioner appealed that decision, and we dismissed the appeal in March 2021, stating that the 
Petitioner had not shown that the Director erred in dismissing the motion. We reserved the issue of 
the Beneficiary's presence in the United States during the time of his claimed employment abroad. 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, which dealt exclusively with the issue of the Beneficiary's 
claimed employment abroad. We dismissed that motion in December 2023, because the Petitioner did 
not state any relevant new facts, supported by credible evidence, that would warrant reopening the 
proceeding. 
The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and 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 reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a partial printout of the "Financial Managers" page from the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, published by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor 
Statistics. The Petitioner asserts that this information establishes that the Beneficiary possesses the 
minimum requirements for the proffered U.S. position. 
This information does not relate to our December 2023 motion decision, which is the only decision 
properly under review in the Petitioner's latest motion. In our December 2023 decision, we dismissed 
the Petitioner's motion because "the evidence submitted in support of the current motion is not relevant 
to the primary basis for the Director's denial of the petition and our prior dismissal of the appeal," and 
because "the Petitioner has not stated new facts to warrant reopening of the proceeding." The 
submission of information from the Occupational Outlook Handbook does not address the procedural 
issues from the prior decision or show that our prior decision was in error. 1 
In its latest motion, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing 
the prior motion. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening 
of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition 
anew and, therefore, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
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). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that it had previously submitted "probative evidence [that] affirms 
the executive responsibilities the beneficiary has with the foreign company." But the scope of the 
present motion is limited to our prior decision, from December 2023. In that decision, we did not 
discuss the merits of the Petitioner's claims. Our review was limited to whether the Petitioner's prior 
motion to reopen, filed in April 2021, met the requirements of such a motion. 2 We concluded that the 
April 2021 filing did not meet those requirements. 
1 Even in our decision before last, issued in March 2021, we did not indicate that the specific requirements for the 
Beneficiary's intended U.S. position were at issue. Therefore, the printout from the Occupational Outlook Handbook does 
not address issues relevant to reopening on motion. 
2 As we advised the Petitioner previously, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision 
in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it 
pertains to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reopen. 
2 
The Petitioner also cites a November 2018 USCIS Policy Memorandum to support arguments related 
to the timing of the Beneficiary's presence in the United States. This issue was not a basis for the 
December 2023 dismissal notice, and therefore the Petitioner's discussion of the issue on motion does 
not establish error that would warrant reconsideration of our December 2023 decision. 3 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, we will dismiss 
the motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3 In our March 2021 decision, we reserved the issue of the Beneficimy's U.S. presence because the appeal was dismissible 
on other grounds. 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 ofL-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 the May 
2019 decision, the Director observed that the Beneficiary must have accrued at least one continuous year of qualifying 
employment abroad during the three years immediately preceding the petition's filing date of April 16, 2014. The Director 
stated that the Beneficiary did not meet this requirement, because he "arrived in the United States on June 22, 2007, and 
has never left." The record includes entry stamps showing the Beneficiary's June 2007 admission into the United States, 
and no similar evidence of any later departure or arrival. The Petitioner's uncorroborated asse1iion that the Beneficiary 
departed in late 2007 and returned in early 2014 has no weight as evidence. See Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 
1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary 
weight"). Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Beneficimy was not employed abroad for at least 
one year between April 2011 and April 2014 as required for eligibility under this petition. 
3