dismissed L-1A Case: Picture Frames

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 2, 2024 In Re: 32809416 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, which sells picture frames, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its chief 
financial officer under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and several subsequent motions. 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 l&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). 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 repeats prior statements but does not assert any new facts and does not 
submit any new evidence. Therefore, the motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen 
and must be dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
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). 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. 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). The Petitioner filed its previous motion in August 2023, and we 
dismissed that motion in February 2024. Only our February 2024 decision is properly before us on 
motion. We will not reach further back in the proceeding to reconsider earlier motions or re-adjudicate 
the merits of the underlying petition. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the denial of the petition and asks that we excuse the untimely filing 
of an earlier motion. The Petitioner does not identify any claimed error in our February 2024 decision 
or cite any legal authority to establish that our February 2024 decision was in error. 
In its latest motion, the Petitioner states: "Rather than reiterating previous arguments, our intention is 
to showcase [the Beneficiary's] unique skill set and experience, demonstrating his ideal fit for the 
executive role within our company." 1 Our February 2024 decision, however, was not based on the 
Beneficiary's qualifications for the position at the petitioning company. Therefore, such arguments 
cannot show that our February 2024 decision was in error. 
In our February 2024 decision, we made the following observations and determinations: 
• In our August 2023 decision dismissing the Petitioner's seventh motion, we concluded that the 
Petitioner had not claimed or shown that our dismissal of the sixth motion was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy. Without such a showing, we would not reach further 
back in the proceeding to the merits of the underlying petition. 
• The Petitioner repeated assertions from previous motions. Specifically, the Petitioner asked 
that we excuse the late filing of a motion from 2020, and the Petitioner asserted that the 
Beneficiary's intended position qualifies as an executive capacity. 
• We explained that we had already addressed these issues in prior decisions, and that the 
Petitioner's raising them again in a new motion did not show proper cause for us to revisit 
those issues or re-adjudicate the petition on its merits. 
We stated: 
[T]he scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the 
proceeding." 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). The Petitioner's contentions in its current 
motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous 
decisions. See, e.g. Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to 
reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief 
presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior 
Board decision"). Although the Petitioner requests that we consider a supplemental 
statement in support of its claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive capacity, that issue is not before us in this eighth motion. We will not re­
adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
1 This passage reiterates a sentence in the Petitioner's previous August 2023 motion: "Rather than reiterating the arguments 
previously made, our intention is to showcase how [the Beneficiaiy's] distinctive skill set and experience render him an 
ideal match for the executive role within our company." 
2 
If the Petitioner does not address and overcome the above conclusions from our February 2024 
decision, then the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsider the proceeding. 
In its latest motion, the Petitioner does not dispute or address the above conclusions from the February 
2024 decision. Instead, the Petitioner again asks that we overlook the untimely filing of an earlier 
motion, and that we consider the merits of the claim that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in an 
executive capacity. 
We considered the merits of the petition in our appellate decision, issued in October 2018, and in our 
May 2019 decision dismissing the Petitioner's first motion. The latest motion reiterates previous 
arguments without addressing the reasons why we dismissed the previous motion in February 2024. 
In its latest motion, the Petitioner submits a lengthy discussion of the role of a chief financial officer, 
apparently identical to information that the Petitioner submitted in support of an earlier motion that 
we dismissed in December 2019. The Petitioner also submits a chart intended to show that the 
Beneficiary's intended duties conform to the statutory definition of an executive capacity. The 
Petitioner submitted the same chart with several earlier motions. When the Petitioner first submitted 
these materials, we explained why they did not suffice to warrant reversal of our earlier decisions. The 
resubmission of these same materials does not establish error in our February 2024 decision. 
The Petitioner's latest motion to reconsider does not establish that our February 2024 decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, we 
will dismiss the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3