dismissed L-1A Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17591341 
Date : SEP 20, 2021 
Motion of Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of cleaning products, seeks to continue beneficiary's classification as 
an intra-company transferee in a managerial capacity . The Director of the Vermont Service Center 
denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that the beneficiary will be 
employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The Petitioner filed 
an appeal, which we dismissed on conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary 
will be employed in a managerial capacity . The Petitioner filed a first motion, which was dismissed 
for not meeting the requirements of a motion. The petitioner filed a second motion, which was 
dismissed as untimely . 
The matter is now before us on a third motion. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 
806 (AAO 2012). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) . A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration, be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decision to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or policy, and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the 
record at the time of the decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . 
A motion to reopen must be filed within 33 days of the relevant decision. A late filing may be excused 
on discretion where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and beyond the control of the 
petitioner. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(l)(i), 103.S(b). 
The primary issue in the current matter is whether the Petitioner has established that our decision to 
dismiss the second motion as untimely was based on an incorrect application of law or, as evidenced 
by new facts in the case. 
The Petitioner asserts that the second motion was untimely because USCIS erred in handling the first 
motion, and that USCIS did not consider the legal brief when determining discretion for the late filing 
of the second motion. 
First, upon review, USCIS did not err in handling the first motion. The Petitioner presents insufficient 
evidence that the second motion was untimely due to incorrect handling of the first motion. The 
decision for the first motion was mailed according to the information provided in Part 1 of the Form 
1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. Additionally, a brief for the first motion was submitted to the 
lockbox subsequent to the filing of the Form 1-290B. When filing a motion to reopen or reconsider, 
the brief is to be submitted together with the Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(iii); see also Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, Instructions at 6 (rev. 
5/17/2018). A submission to the Lockbox without a filing fee and properly completed Form 1-290B 
will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l). 
Secondly, USCIS considered the information provided with the filing of the second motion. A motion 
to reopen must state the new facts to be considered and be supported by affidavits or evidence. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5( a)(2). The details addressed in the second motion related to factors prior to the decision 
of the first motion rather than an explanation for untimely filing of the second motion. As well, the 
Petitioner did not submit relevant evidence to explain the untimely filing of the second motion. 
We find no reason to disturb our previous findings regarding the Director's decision that the Petitioner 
did not provide sufficient evidence that the beneficiary will be employed in a qualifying managerial 
or executive capacity in the United States. The appellant repeats arguments that we previously 
considered, and a motion is not an opportunity to reargue previous arguments or to raise new 
arguments that could have been offered before. Disagreement with the result is also not a basis for 
reconsideration. See Matter of O-S-G, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 60 (BIA, 2006). 
As the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, we 
will dismiss the motions. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2