dismissed L-1A Case: Pipeline Leak Detection

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15747572 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 26, 2021 
The Petitioner is a provider of solutions to detect pipeline leaks, intrusions, or obstructions. It seeks 
to temporarily employ the Beneficiary in the United States as its president under the L-lA 
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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that it was doing business as defined by the and that the Beneficiary would be employed in 
the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. We then summarily dismissed the Petitioner's 
appeal of that decision and the Petitioner subsequently filed the first of three combined motions to 
reopen and reconsider. We dismissed the first motion as untimely.1 We also dismissed the next two 
motions, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the untimeliness was reasonable and 
beyond its control and that we therefore could not excuse the untimeliness of the Petitioner's motion 
to reopen. 2 The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. 
Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. REQUIREMENTS OF A MOTION TO REOPEN 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (1) 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. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
In addition, the new facts in a motion to reopen must possess such significance that "the new evidence 
offered would likely change the result in the case." See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 
1992). In other words, a motion to reopen should only be granted under a limited set of circumstances 
where the Petitioner demonstrates that the new evidence would result in a different outcome. See id. 
1 The Petitioner does not dispute the lateness of its initial combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, whose 
filing deadline was November 26, 2018. 
2 A motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, including three 
days for service by mail. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(b). There is no exception to this requirement. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the scope of review in any motion is narrowly limited to the 
basis of the prior adverse decision. In the instance, the prior adverse decision was based on the 
conclusion that the Petitioner did not provided new facts and supporting evidence in support of a 
motion to reopen, nor did it support a motion to reconsider by establishing that we incorrectly applied 
the law or policy in determining that the untimeliness of the Petitioner's first motion was due to a 
delay that was reasonable and beyond its control. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i). Therefore, although 
the Petitioner discusses issues that served as grounds for the original denial, we will not address those 
factors and will instead limit our review to only new facts and evidence that pertain to the issues that 
were addressed in our prior adverse decision. 
A. Timeliness of the Petitioner's Initial Motion to Reconsider 
As discussed in our prior decision, the regulations require that a motion to reconsider be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, including three days for service by mail. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(b). Because there is no exception to this requirement, we 
determined that the untimely filing of a motion to reconsider warrants a dismissal of that motion. The 
new evidence offered in support of the current motion does not address our basis for dismissing the 
prior motion to reconsider. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the new facts warrant a 
reopening of our prior decision to dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
B. Timeliness of the Petitioner's Initial Motion to Reopen 
In our prior decision, we explained that because the Petitioner provided inconsistent assertions as to 
its reason for filing an untimely motion to reopen in November 2018, we questioned the veracity of 
the Petitioner's claim that the untimeliness of the initial motion to reopen was reasonable and beyond 
its control. 
Further, given that the untimely motion was filed in November 2018, we questioned the relevance of 
the Beneficiary's son's thumb injury and asthma symptoms, which occurred in September 2018 and 
April 2019, respectively, and determined that family obligations do not constitute events that are 
"beyond the control of the applicant or Petitioner," are required by the regulations. We further 
concluded that regardless of the reason for the Beneficiary's absence, it was not beyond the 
Petitioner's reasonable control to make arrangements for another employee or individual, other than 
the Beneficiary, to monitor and manage its correspondence during the Beneficiary's absence. 
In the brief provided in support of the current motion, the Petitioner asserts that "continuing to deny 
our petition to re-open this case is contrary to applicable law." The Petitioner refers to "pertinent 
medical grounds" and the lack of an "easy" solution to address the Beneficiary's family circumstances, 
which included a spouse with no driver's license having to "manage multiple trips to and back from 
the hospital" while caring for three school-age children and one child who was younger than school 
age. However, as indicated by the above synopsis of prior submissions, we have considered the 
"pertinent medical grounds" that are referenced in this motion and further determined that the 
Beneficiary's absence, despite the family circumstances that may have prompted the absence, were 
2 
not beyond the Petitioner's reasonable control as the Petitioner was free to arrange for someone other 
than the Beneficiary to oversee the company's correspondence during the Beneficiary's absence. 
In addition to the motion brief, the Petitioner provides a statement from the Beneficiary, a letter from 
the Little Rock Christian Academy discussing the Beneficiary's son's thumb injury in September 
2018, and a letter from the Regus "Community Manager" stating that the Petitioner has leased office 
space from Regus "since the last couple of years" and assuring the veracity of the Beneficiary's claim 
that he was out of town on a "family emergency" between September and November 2018. Although 
all three documents contain dates that indicate they were drafted in October 2020 and are therefore 
deemed to be new evidence, they do not contain new relevant facts establishing that the untimeliness 
of the November 2018 motion was reasonable and beyond the Petitioner's control. As determined in 
our prior decision, the Beneficiary's family and marital obligations are reasonably foreseeable and not 
deemed to be the types of events that are reasonably beyond the Petitioner's control, as contemplated 
by the regulations. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening our prior decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3