dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-S-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 6, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 
I-129, PETITION FOR 
A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner intends to operate a chain of retail stores and seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as the 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)(l5)(L). The L-IA 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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, or that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
We denied a subsequent appeal, also finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
was employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States or with the foreign 
employer. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. 
With its motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence and asserts that we erred in 
our prior decision. Upon review, we will deny the 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 U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (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. 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, LLC 
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, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion that is properly 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 provision at 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(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 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(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 
Further, the new facts must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened, with 
all the attendant delays, the new evidence offered would1likely change the result in the case." Matter 
ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-
40 (lOth Cir. 2013). 
Here, the Petitioner has submitted new evidence, in part, to support a motion to reopen. However, as 
will be discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that the new evidence would change the 
outcome of the case or that the petition warrants approval. Accordingly, we will deny the motion to 
reopen. 
II. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary has at least 
one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three 
years preceding the filing of the petition. 
In dismissing the appeal, we noted that, although the Petitioner submitted evidence to establish the 
Beneficiary's partial ownership and/or director position with we 
found that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the Beneficiary's one year of full-time, 
continuous employment abroad. 
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 1 to the contrary, and such instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission." 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, LLC 
On motion, the Petitioner submits payroll documents2 showing that the Beneficiary was employed 
by for at least one full year of employment within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. The Petitioner also submitted a profit and loss statement for the 
Beneficiary showing that she received a profit share received from ' 3 
But the profit and loss statement does not show that the Beneficiary received a salary as an 
employee. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not provide other paystubs, payroll, or tax documents to 
establish her full-time employment with 
Even though the payroll documents indicate that the Beneficiary has 
at least one continuous year of employment abroad, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity with 
that company. 
While the Director ended her analysis once she found insufficient evidence of the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad, we determined on appeal that the evidence of record did not establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity with the foreign employer. 
Although requested by the Director in her RFE, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient details 
regarding the Beneficiary's positions with either claimed employer. Without the requested 
information, such as a detailed job description, organizational chart, and information regarding the 
Beneficiary's subordinates, we were unable to make a determination regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment capacity during the three years preceding the filing of the petition. The Petitioner did 
not address this issue on 
appeal or in this motion. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165. Thus, despite the submission of the payroll documentation, the 
Petitioner has not submitted sufficient new evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was empioyed 
in a managerial or executive capacity with a qualifying organization abroad. 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The next issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner -has established that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign employer. Upon review of the Petitioner's assertions and additional 
evidence on motion, we conclude that it has not established that it has a qualifying relationship with 
the foreign employer. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, the Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. 
2 We note that the computer generated payroll documents contain typos and the font and formatting of the documents is 
similar to the Beneficiary's personal profit and loss account statements. 
3 Documentation in the record refers to this entity as ' 
and For consistency's sake, we refer to this entity as 
· in this decision. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, LLC 
one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section 101(a)(15)(L) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner claimed to be an affiliate of the Beneficiary's foreign employer, 
In dismissing the appeal, we noted that the Petitioner 
submitted conflicting evidence as to the identity of the Beneficiary's foreign employer abroad, either 
of or of India. We further 
stated that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to show that the Beneficiary was 
employed by for the requisite one year period. Therefore, our analysis 
was based on the qualifying relationship with the claimed employer in India. 
We found that the Petitioner provided evidence to show the Beneficiary's 60% majority ownership 
of the U.S. entity. Although the Beneficiary retains de jure control over the U.S. entity, the 
Petitioner has only shown that the Beneficiary owns 36.04% of The Petitioner has 
neither claimed nor submitted evidence to establish that the Beneficiary controls the Indian entity 
based on her 
minority ownership interest. 
The Petitioner had the opportunity to supplement the record in response to the Director's RFE and 
on appeal, but it did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner has a qualifying 
relationship with the claimed foreign employer, The Petitioner has 
not submitted new evidence to overcome our previous finding. 
IV. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The last issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity, as defined at sections (101)(a)(44)(A) and (B) of 
the Act, under the new office petition. Upon review of the additional evidence and assertions 
provided on motion, the Pet!_tioner has not established that the Beneficiary will act in a managerial or 
executive capacity within one year of approval. 
Although this issue was not addressed by th~ Director, we determined on appeal that the evidence of 
record did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity. We noted that the Petitioner initially submitted a broad job description, and did not 
comply with the Director's RFE, which included requests for the following: a statement describing 
the proposed nature of the new business, the scope of the entity, its organizational structure and 
financial goals, and evidence of the foreign entity's financial ability to pay the Beneficiary and 
commence doing business in the United States. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits copies of a letter from and 
both claiming to be the Petitioner's parent company, and both claiming to "expand 
their business in the United States of America." The letters are otherwise almost identical. The 
letters are also almost identical copies of the Petitioner's letter dated April 14, 2015, and submitted 
in support of the initial petition. As such, the letters submitted on appeal do not provide any 
4 
Matter of C-S-, LLC 
additional information to overcome the grounds for denial and were already considered in our initial 
dismissal. 
The Petitioner had the opportunity to supplement the record in response to the Director's RFE and 
on appeal, but it has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The Petitioner has not 
submitted new evidence to overcome our previous finding. 
V. 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofC-S-, LLC, ID# 12586 (AAO Oct. 6, 2016) 
J 
5