dismissed L-1A Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-G-A-V-S-. LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC.l4.2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner. a marketing and promotional materials business. seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its chief executive otlicer and manager under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(l5)(L). 8 U.S.C. ~ 110l(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. concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. We 
later dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. In support 
of its motion. the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary performs primarily executive and managerial 
duties and that it requires an additional year to ''implement our foundation." 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal tiling requirements (such as 
submission of a properly completed Form I-2908. Notice of Appeal or Motion. with the correct fee), 
and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)( I). 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (I) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding: and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
~ 1 03.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect 
1 
The Petitioner previously filed a ''new office" petition on the Beneficim-y"s behalf which was approved for the period 
January 7. 2016. until January 6, 2017. 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(1)( I )(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. 
Matter of H-G-A- V-S-. LLC' 
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. § 1 03.5(a)(3). 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 (USCIS) or Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) policy. We may grant a motion to reopen or reconsider that satisfies these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below. we will deny the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. 
While the current motion includes newly submitted assertions and evidence, the Petitioner has not 
shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In our previous decision, we determined that the Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. as defined at section 101(a)(44) of the Act. under 
the extended petition. 
We pointed to several evidentiary deficiencies on the record. We found that the Beneficiary's duties 
were overly vague and that they did not reflect his day-to-day tasks. noting that they did not include 
any references to the Petitioner's specific business. Further. we indicated that the record included 
evidence that the Beneficiary was still performing non-qualifying operational tasks and found that 
the Petitioner did not indicate what portion of time he devoted to these tasks as compared to 
managerial or executive tasks. Finally. we found that the Petitioner had provided insufficient 
evidence to establish that it employed the workers and contractors listed in its organizational chart. 
After reviewing the totality of the evidence. we concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that it employed sufficient employees to perform the operational duties of the business as necessary 
to relieve the Beneficiary from primarily performing these tasks. 
On motion. the Petitioner does not provide new facts to overcome our previous conclusions. The 
Petitioner only points to its business difficulties in a '"fearful market" and states that ·'due to a set 
back with our LI renew we lost some ... grip on our growth." The Petitioner assetis that it requires 
another year ''to implement our foundation and certainly our company will provide many openings 
for this new aggressive strategy.'' Further. the Petitioner states that '"as a small company. [the 
Beneficiary] has a hundred of functions and duties." and reiterates the statutory definitions of 
managerial and executive capacity. The Petitioner contends that it believes the Beneficiary's duties 
have been primarily consistent with those definitions. 
These assetiions are not sufficient to overcome our previous reasons for dismissing the appeal. As 
discussed in our previous decision. the Petitioner has provided a vague duty description which docs 
not provide a detailed picture of the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day tasks and further it docs not 
indicate how much time he devotes to operational tasks as compared to qualifying managerial or 
2 
Matter of H-CJ-A-V-S-. LLC' 
executive tasks. On motion. the Petitioner provides no additional clarifications to address these 
insut11ciencies. In fact. the Petitioner·s claim that it has experienced setbacks in its development and 
the statement that the Beneficiary has ··a hundred'" functions and duties only provides more question 
as to the Beneficiary's role and whether he is primarily performing managerial or executive tasks. 
Conclusory assertions regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity are not sutllcient. Merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. 
Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd v. Sctva. 724 F. Supp. 1103. 1108 (E.D.N. Y. 1989). afj"d. 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990):Avyr Assoc.~ .. Inc. v. Meissner. 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Likewise, the Petitioner has not addressed the lack of evidence to corroborate its asserted stalling 
levels and organizational structure. For instance. we noted that the Petitioner did not substantiate its 
organizational chart, particularly its assertion that it used independent contractors to perform the 
operational duties of the business. The Petitioner offers no new facts or evidence to address these 
insufficiencies. The Petitioner indicates that one more year will allow it to gain a better 
"foundation·· and implement a "new aggressive marketing strategy:· The Petitioner appears to assert 
that it requires another year to develop to support the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. 
Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's difficulties in development. the regulations do not allow 
for a second year as a new office. The submitted evidence is not persuasive in demonstrating that 
the Beneficiary has been or will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only allows the intended U.S. operation one year within the date of 
approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no provision in 
USC IS regulations allowing for an extension of this one-year period. If the business does not have 
the necessary staffing after one year to suftlciently relieve the Beneficiary from performing 
operational and administrative tasks. the Petitioner is ineligible for an extension. 
We addressed our reasons for dismissing the appeal at length in the previous decision. The 
Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reopen by submitting new facts or evidence to 
overcome the issues raised in our decision. For this reason. the motion to reopen is denied. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
As noted. 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. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3 ). A motion to reconsider must be 
supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision. statutory or regulatory provision. or 
statement ofUSCIS or DHS policy. 
On motion. the Petitioner does not asse1i that any of the findings set forth in our previous decision 
were incorrect based on pertinent precedent or adopted decision. statutory or regulatory provision. or 
statement of USClS or DHS policy. 
Matter ofH-G-A-V-S'-, LLC' 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted any assertions that would meet the requirements of a 
motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider must be denied. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed. the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the proceeding or 
proper cause for reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofH-G-A-V-S-. LLC. 10# 803770 (AAO Dec. 14. 2017) 
4