dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate And Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-W- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 11, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a real estate and export business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its 
chief executive officer (CEO) under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(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 based on three grounds. We dismissed 
the appeal and denied a subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. We found that the Director 
correctly declined to treat the Petitioner as a new office; we therefore withdrew the finding that the 
Beneficiary had not been doing business. We also withdrew our prior adverse finding on the issue of 
the Petitioner's qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. Notwithstanding 
these two withdrawals, we affirmed the prior adverse findings regarding the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment in an executive capacity and the Beneficiary's employment abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity for one year during the three-year period prior to filing the instant petition. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we "missed the point of the petition," contending that the purpose 
of the filing was "to correct an inadvertent mistake" on a previously filed new office petition. The 
Petitioner asserts that its argument on doing business has been upheld by "the courts." 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
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). A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
Matter of K-W- LLC 
II. ANALYSIS 
The primary issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner has offered new relevant 
facts supported by credible evidence or made arguments establishing that our decision to dismiss the 
appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy with respect to the facts of this 
case. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have 
been satisfied from the time of the filing (in this case, June 2017) and continuing through adjudication. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the 
prior adverse decision. Here, the subject of the prior decision was our denial of the Petitioner's first 
motion to reopen and reconsider. As such, the purpose of this decision is to examine any new facts 
and supporting evidence that pertain to the denial of that motion and to consider arguments 
establishing that our denial of the motion was based on a misapplication of law or USCIS policy. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In denying the prior motion to reopen, we determined that the Petitioner did not offer new facts or 
provide evidence in support of new facts. Although the Petitioner provides a legal brief in support of 
this motion, it does not offer new facts or supporting evidence to establish that we incorrectly denied 
the prior motion based on the record as constituted when that motion was adjudicated. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
In support of the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner first addresses the issue of doing business, 
contending that we erred in finding that the Petitioner's collection ofrent from its commercial property 
tenants constituted doing business. Although the Petitioner claims that "the courts" have issued 
decisions that contradict our finding, it does not specifically cite to any cases to support this claim, nor 
has it otherwise submitted evidence to establish that our determination on the issue of doing business 
was based on a misapplication of the law or USCIS policy. The Petitioner must support its assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 
2010). 
Next, the Petitioner addresses the Beneficiary's foreign employment, arguing that we incorrectly 
interpreted the regulations to mean that the Beneficiary's foreign employment must have taken place 
outside of the United States; the Petitioner contends that the term "abroad," as used in the regulations, 
does not refer to the Beneficiary's physical presence, but rather to the location of the job position itself 
In other words, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary can satisfy the foreign employment 
requirement, regardless of where he is physically during the term of that employment, so long as the 
position itself is with the foreign entity. The Petitioner offers an article on the frequency of 
teleworking to support the assertion that an individual's physical location can be removed from the 
place of the actual position, given the modem technological advances in telecommunication. The 
Petitioner's interpretation, however, is inconsistent with the regulations, which expressly state that 
2 
Matter of K-W- LLC 
while brief periods of time spent in the United States for business or pleasure "shall not be interruptive" 
of the Beneficiary's period of employment abroad, "such periods shall not be counted toward 
fulfillment of [the foreign employment] requirement." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). In other words, 
use of the term "abroad" within the context of the regulations relates to the Beneficiary's actual 
physical presence with respect to the United States in that the Beneficiary is required to be physically 
outside of the United States during the claimed period of employment abroad in order for that time to 
count towards the one-year requirement. As the Petitioner does not offer precedent case law to support 
its own interpretation of the term "abroad," it has not demonstrated that our decision, which is 
consistent with the regulatory provisions, was based on a misapplication of law or USCIS policy. 
Lastly, with regard to our determination on the issue of the Beneficiary's proposed employment in an 
executive capacity, the Petitioner restates the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown, broadly claiming that 
"meetings one after another" consume a considerable portion of a CEO's daily activities. The 
Petitioner asserts that we "errored [sic] in assuming that CEOs has [sic] specific tasks everyday [sic]" 
and that we should not have asked for the Beneficiary's specific job duties. We note, however, that 
the Petitioner's arguments are inconsistent with certain provisions in the regulations, which expressly 
state that the Petitioner "shall" submit evidence, which is to include "a detailed description of the 
services to be performed." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Specifics are clearly an important indication of 
whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the 
definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The Petitioner has not cited 
to precedent case law to support its own contentions, which contradict our decision and also appear to 
contradict the relevant regulatory provisions. 
In sum, while we acknowledge that the Petitioner disagrees with our denial of the motion to reconsider, 
it has not provided evidence establishing that the findings in our prior decision were based on an 
incorrect application oflaw or USCIS 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). Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown cause for reconsideration. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition 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. Because the Petitioner has not shown proper 
cause for reopening or reconsideration, it has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of K-W- LLC, ID# 3988208 (AAO July 11, 2019) 
3