dismissed L-1A Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12036264 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 24, 2021 
Form I-140, Nonimmigrant Petition for an Intracompany Transferee 
The Petitioner, a distribution center for watches and other merchandise, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as a logistics manager in its "new office" 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. 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 California Service Center denied the petition on the grounds that the Petitioner did 
not establish (1) that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for 
one continuous year during the three years preceding the filing of the instant petition, as required in 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii), and (2) that the Beneficiary would be employed in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval, as 
required in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, affirming the Director's grounds for denial. We also identified 
additional issues that needed to be addressed in any future proceedings - including the location of the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad, whether the Beneficiary could possibly have completed one 
continuous year of employment abroad during the three years preceding the filing of this petition, and 
documentary evidence which did not appear to be authentic. 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, which we dismissed on the ground that while new facts were 
alleged in the Petitioner's brief concerning the Beneficiary's employment abroad and in the United 
States, they were not supported by any documentary evidence as required in 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
We also noted that the motion did not address all of the additional issues discussed in our appellate 
decision and cited Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988), which makes clear that the 
burden of proof rests with the petitioner to resolve inconsistencies in the record. 
The Petitioner then filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, supported by a brief 
with some legal arguments relating to the Beneficiary's foreign and U.S. employment but no new 
evidence. We dismissed the motions, stating that the Petitioner's latest filing did not include any new 
1 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(l)(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 . 
facts supported by documentary evidence, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) for a motion to reopen, 
and that the Petitioner did not establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) policy, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3) for a motion to reconsider. We also focused on the Petitioner's continuing failure to 
address the additional issues identified in our appellate decision despite our indication in that decision 
that they must be addressed in future proceedings. Finally, we noted that when a party fails to offer 
an argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned, citing Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 
1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristor v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885, at *l, *9 
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 3o, 2011) (plaintiff's claims abandoned when not raised on appeal to the AAO). We 
concluded, therefore, that even if the Petitioner had overcome the original bases for the denial, the 
current motions would be dismissed. 
The matter is now before us on another motion to reconsider. 2 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) 
provides that a motion to reconsider must establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy. In its brief the Petitioner asserts that neither the Director in the 
initial decision nor this office in succeeding decisions applied the correct standard of proof: which is 
preponderance of the evidence in accordance with Matter of Chawathe, 12 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). 
We do not agree. Generally, when something is to be established by a preponderance of the evidence, 
it is sufficient that the proof establish that it is probably true. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77 
(Comm'r 1989). The evidence in each case is judged by its probative value and credibility. Each 
piece of relevant evidence is examined and determinations are made as to whether such evidence, 
either by itself or when viewed within the totality of the evidence, establishes that something to be 
proved is probably true. Truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone, but by its 
quality. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77 (Comm'r 1989). In this case the Petitioner has been 
repeatedly apprised of its evidentiary shortcomings in prior decisions, and has not remedied them or 
provided any evidence that the appropriate standard of proof was not applied. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that our previous decision dismissing the combined motion to reopen and reconsider 
was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration of our prior decision. The motion will 
be dismissed for this reason. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2 On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner selected the box stating "I am filing a motion to 
reconsider." While the Petitioner's supporting brief is entitled "Brief in Support of Motion to Reopen and Reconsider," 
the filing as a whole does not indicate an intent to include a motion to reopen since no new facts are alleged in the brief 
and no new documentation is submitted with the brief. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(2) provides that "[a] motion 
to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence." 
2