dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 17, 2023 In Re: 29042083 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a restaurant, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as president of its new office 
under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that: (1) it had secured sufficient physical premises for the new office; (2) the Beneficiary 
had been employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (3) it would employ 
the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity within one year after approval of the 
petition. We summarily dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and dismissed three subsequent motions to 
reopen or reconsider. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&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). 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. 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 does not submit any new evidence. 
For context, here is a timeline of this proceeding: 
May 1, 2019: The Director denied the petition. 
May 28, 2019: The Petitioner filed an appeal, stating that its "brief and/or additional evidence 
is attached," but the appeal did not include any brief or additional evidence. 
January 28, 2020: We summarily dismissed the appeal, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), 
because the appeal did not specifically identify any erroneous conclusions of 
law or fact in the underlying decision. 
February 20, 2020: The Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, contesting the May 2019 denial of 
the petition but not the January 2020 summary dismissal of the appeal. 
June 8, 2020: We dismissed the motion because it did not show that our January 2020 decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and did not establish 
that the January 2020 decision was inconect based on the record at the time of 
that decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
June 24, 2020: The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, submitting copies of previously 
submitted documents and disputing the Director's May 2019 denial decision. 
December 31, 2020: We dismissed the second motion, stating the motion did not asse1i any new facts 
and did not overcome the January 2020 summary dismissal of the appeal. 
March 23, 2021: The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, submitting documents relating to its 
claimed business activities and news articles relating to denial rates for L-1 
nonimmigrant petitions. 
March 22, 2023: We dismissed the third motion as untimely, because the Petitioner filed the 
motion 19 days after the expiration of the filing deadline. That deadline had 
been extended to 63 days owing to temporary filing flexibilities relating to 
COVID-19. 
Now, on its fourth motion, the Petitioner states that it had misread the instructions relating to the 
extended filing deadlines, and believed that it had 90 days to file the motion. 
We may, at our discretion, excuse the untimely filing of a motion to reopen if the petitioner 
demonstrates that the delay was reasonable and beyond the petitioner's control. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(i). The Petitioner's misunderstanding of the filing instructions was not beyond the 
Petitioner's control. Leaving aside their relevance to the motion, the media a1iicles submitted on 
motion were published in April 2014, May 2018, and November 2020. The Petitioner does not claim 
that they were unavailable to the Petitioner during the time allotted to file a timely motion in response 
to our December 2020 decision. 
The Petitioner also observes that "[t]he Service did however extend the 90 day response time for the 
Decisions at a later date." This revised guidance applies only to filings relating to decisions issued 
between November 1, 2021 and March 23, 2023 .1 As such, it does not give us discretion to accept the 
Petitioner's untimely motion from our December 2020 decision. 
Because the Petitioner has not stated new facts to wanant reopening of the proceeding, the motion 
does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen and must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Furthermore, even if were to disregard the untimely filing of the March 2021 motion, we would not 
approve the underlying petition. The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the 
latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i), (ii). Here, the Petitioner's March 2021 
1 See USCIS Extends COVID-19-related Flexibilities, https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-extends-covid- l 9-
related-flexibilities- l. 
2 
motion did not cite new facts to show that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. Instead, the 
Petitioner disputed the grounds for denial of the petition. Because the Petitioner did not establish new 
facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we had no basis to reopen our prior decision. 
We summarily dismissed the Petitioner's May 2019 appeal because it did not, as required, identify 
any errors of law or fact in the Director's denial decision. In its subsequent motions, the Petitioner 
has not established that the summary dismissal was in error. Instead, the Petitioner argued the merits 
of the petition, disputing the denial decision. Because the Petitioner did not overcome the summary 
dismissal of the appeal, we will not consider the merits of the underlying petition at this late date. We 
will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3