dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF A-T-T-R-M-, INC. DATE: OCT. 13,2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a restaurant business, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its 
general manager under the L-1A 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-
1A 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Directm concluded that the 
Petitioner, did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the extended petition. The Petitioner appealed the Director's decision and we 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen 
and reconsider, which we denied. 
The matter is now before us on a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On the Form I-
29GB, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner marked the box at Part 3 indicating that a brief 
and/or additional evidence was attached. However, the Petitioner's motion included only the Form 
I-290B without a statement regarding the basis of the appeal or motion, a brief, or additional 
evidence. 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A. Overarching Requirement for Motions by a Petitioner 
The provision at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) includes the following statement limiting a USCIS 
officer's authority to reopen the proceeding or reconsider the decision to instances where "proper 
cause" has been shown for such action: "[T]he official having jurisdiction may, for proper cause 
shown, reopen the proceeding or reconsider the prior decision." 
Thus, to merit reopening or reconsideration, the submission must not only meet the formal 
requirements for filing (such as, for instance, submission of a Form I-290B that is properly 
Matter of A-T-T-R-M-, Inc. 
completed and signed, and accompanied by the correct fee), but the Petitioner. must also show proper 
cause for granting the motion. As stated in the prov;ision at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)( 4), "Processing 
motions in proceedings before the Service," "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements 
shall be dismissed." 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reopen and Reconsider 
' 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), "Requirements for motion to reopen," states: 
A motion to reopen must [ ( 1)] state the new facts to be provided in the reopened 
proceeding and [(2)] be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
This provision is supplemented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which states: 
Motion to Reopen: The motion must state new facts and must be supported by 
affidavits and/or documentary evidence demonstrating eligibility at the time the 
underlying petition ... was filed. 1 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), "Requirements for motion to reconsider," states: 
A motion to reconsider must [(1)] state the reasons for reconsideration and [(2)] be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a 
decision on an application or petition must [ (3)], [ (a)] when filed, also [(b)] establish 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. 
These provisions are augmented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which states: 
Motion to Reconsider: ·:fhe motion must be supported by citations to appropriate 
statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions when filed and must establish that the 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and that the decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of decision. 
II. DISCUSSION 
As noted, the Petitioner indicated on its Form I-290B that it was filing a combined motion to reopen 
and reconsider with an attached brief and/or additional evidence, but did not include a brief or 
additional evidence in its submission. Further, the Petitioner did not follow the instructions at Part 4 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(a)(l) states in pertinent part: "Every benefit request or other document submitted to 
DHS must be executed and filed in accordance with the form instructions, notwithstanding any provision of 8 CFR 
chapter I to the contrary, and such instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission." 
2 
Matter of A-T-T-R-M-, Inc. 
of the Form I-290B, which advises that "On a separate sheet of paper, you must provide a statement 
regarding the basis for the ... motion." 
Accordingly, the Petitioner's motion to reopen not contain any new facts that could be considered in 
a reopened proceeding and it is not supported by affidavits and/or documentary evidence 
demonstrating eligibility at the time the underlying petition was filed. 
Further, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not state the reasons for reconsideration, is not 
supported by citations to appropriate statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions, and does not 
establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect~ application oflaw or policy. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met the applicable requirements for a motion to reopen or a 
motion to reconsider. 
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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the combined motion will be denied, 
the proceedings will not be reopened or reconsidered, and our previous decision will not be 
disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-T-T-R-M-, Inc., ID# 13375 (AAO Oct. 13, 2016) 
3