dismissed L-1A Case: Logistics

MATTER OF U-W-C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 12, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a distribution center for watches and other merchandise, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as the logistics manager of its new office1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity and 
that she would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity within one 
year of approval of the new office petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal and 
affirmed both grounds for denial. We also added new findings in which we pointed to 
inconsistencies that led us to further question the Petitioner's eligibility regarding the following: 
(1) the credibility of the Petitioner's claim regarding the Beneficiary's place of employment abroad; 
(2) whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad continuously for one year during the relevant 
three-year time period; (3) whether the evidence submitted with regard to the existence of the 
foreign entity was credible; and (4) whether the Petitioner submitted valid stock certificates to 
establish its ownership. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen in support of which the Petitioner attempts to 
resolve previously noted inconsistencies and restates the prior claim that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad as both an executive and as a function manager. The Petitioner also raises a new 
claim, asserting that the Beneficiary's position abroad involved specialized knowledge. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion to reopen. 
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(1)(1)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3Xv)(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. 
.
Matter of U-W-C-, Inc. 
I. REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION TO REOPEN 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion 
to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The primary issues in this matter are whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts, supported by 
credible evidence, to overcome the adverse findings in our prior decision regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad, her proposed U.S. employment, and the various credibility issues that pertain to 
the Beneficiary's employment abroad and the Petitioner's ownership. The Petitioner must establish 
that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the 
filing (in this case, December 2016) and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the motion to reopen. While the current motion 
includes newly submitted evidence in the form of a legal brief, the new facts that the Petitioner 
raised in the brief were not supported by corroborating evidence. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
shown proper cause for reopening. 
A. Previous AAO Decision 
In dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we determined that the Petitioner did not provide credible 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad by the foreign entity -
- for the required one year during the relevant three-year time period that preceded the 
filing of this petition. First, we addressed the Beneficiary's job duties and the foreign entity's 
staffing, finding that the evidence submitted was not sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed as either an executive or a function manager. We noted that on appeal, the Petitioner did 
not address, rebut, or contest the Director's finding that the Beneficiary ' s subordinates were truly 
supervisory, despite their managerial job titles. 
Next, we addressed the issue of the Beneficiary ' s proposed employment, finding that the Petitioner 
did not provide sufficient evidence upon which we could base the conclusion that it would 
realistically support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the 
petition's approval. In making this finding, we considered the Petitioner's projected organizational 
chart, which we found to be inconsistent with statements that the Petitioner repeatedly made in its 
business plan. We also questioned the validity of the Petitioner's bank statements, which reflect 
2 To the extent that the Petitioner makes repeated references to previously submitted evidence, such as an organizational 
chart and "a brief description " of the Beneficiary's responsibilities , these references offer no new facts. All previously 
submitted evidence was considered in our de novo review of the record ; any documents that were relevant to the 
Petitioner 's eligibility were fully addressed in our prior decision and will not be reevaluated in this proceeding. 
2 
.
Matter of U-W-C-, Inc. 
dates that preceded the date of the Petitioner's incorporation and contained an incomplete mailing 
address that was inconsistent with the address indicated as the Beneficiary's place of work. 
In addition, we addressed an anomaly which led us to question the overall credibility of the 
Petitioner's claim regarding the place and dates of the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employment. 
Namely, we reviewed the Beneficiary's resume, which we considered in light of the dates and place 
of the claimed employment; we found it unrealistic for the Beneficiary to have been simultaneously 
employed by the foreign entity in India and attended school in India given 
the approximately 250-mile distance between the foreign entity and the school. We also questioned 
the reliability of the Petitioner's stock certificates, pointing out that the company name does not 
match the Petitioner's legal name as shown on its certificate of formation. 
Although the Petitioner offers new facts in support of its motion, it does not address or acknowledge 
the additional anomalies discussed in the paragraph above. Further, these new facts were not 
supported by corroborating evidence. 
B. Employment Abroad 
On motion, the Petitioner provides a list of discretionary decisions and actions attributed to the 
Beneficiary; it claims that these decisions and actions demonstrate the Beneficiary's authority to 
make personnel decisions and set the foreign entity's financial goals. However, the Petitioner does 
not provide evidence to support these new claims. The Petition also does not resolve the 
inconsistency that we noted between the Beneficiary's original job description, which indicated that 
the Beneficiary spent half of her time training and supervising a sales staff, and its subsequent claim 
that the Beneficiary assumed the role of a function manager. Instead, the Petitioner provides a 
confusing explanation stating that the foreign entity is a partnership whose only two executives are 
the partners themselves, all the while continuing to argue that the terms "function manager" and 
"executive" are both applicable to the Beneficiary. The Petitioner did not provide new evidence to 
support these claims. 
The Petitioner also addresses our finding that the Beneficiary entered the United States in July 2014 
in F-1 nonimmigrant classification for the purpose of attending the 
thereby interrupting her claimed period of employment abroad. The Petitioner 
contends that the Beneficiary continued working for the foreign entity remotely and researched 
potential U.S. investments while attending school in the United States. However, the Petitioner does 
not provide evidence to support this claim, nor does it address our chief concern that the Beneficiary 
did not enter the United States for the primary purpose of working for the foreign entity's U.S. 
branch, parent, affiliate, or subsidiary. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). 
Next, the Petitioner addresses our adverse finding that pertains to a photograph purporting to show 
the foreign entity's storefront. The Petitioner contends that we "failed to mention" previously 
submitted evidence, which it deems sufficient for the purpose of establishing the foreign entity's 
existence. We disagree and note that all previously submitted evidence, whether or not it was 
3 
.
Matter of U-W-C-, Inc. 
specifically mentioned in our prior decision, has been considered. Contrary to the Petitioner's 
unsupported claim, our questions concerning the validity of a previously submitted photograph did 
not result from an oversight or failure to consider previously submitted evidence. 
C. U.S. Employment 
The Petitioner also addressed our concerns pertaining to the Beneficiary's proposed employment in 
the United States. As discussed earlier, we questioned the validity of bank statements, which 
suggest that the Petitioner existed prior to the date of its corporate formation. The Petitioner 
explained that the bank statements belonged to a previously existing 
entity that predated the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims that it ultimately purchased the previously 
existing entity after finalizing a purported purchase agreement in 2016 and states that it was 
incorporated in November 2016, after execution of that agreement. 
However, the Petitioner did not provide a purchase agreement to corroborate this new claim. 
Moreover, the new claim contradicts the Petitioner's previously submitted exhibit list, which listed 
and described exhibits that were submitted initially in support of the petition. The exhibit list 
indicated that the bank statements were submitted as part of supporting Ex. H, which was described 
as "Copy of Corporate Bank Account for the new U.S. entity to prepare to begin U.S. business 
operations upon approval of the petition." Nowhere in the exhibit list, or elsewhere in the record, 
did the Petitioner state that the bank statements belong to another entity, nor did it previously claim 
or provide evidence to show that it was purchased from a previously existing entity whose name was 
remarkably similar to its own. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency 
of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner's claim that the address discrepancy we noted in the bank 
statements was the result of "a typographical error" was equally insufficient; the Petitioner has once 
again submitted no evidence to support its claim, which we consider in light of the other unresolved 
discrepancies. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the 
requirements of a motion to reopen. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for 
reopen mg. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of U-W-C-, Inc., ID# 1621616 (AAO Sept. 12, 2018) 
4