dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 23, 2024 In Re: 29827288 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a liquor store, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as store director 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 had 
not established that: (1) the Beneficiary had been employed abroad for one continuous year during 
the three years preceding the filing of the petition; (2) the Beneficiary 's claimed employment abroad 
had been in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (3) the Petitioner's new office would 
employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity within one year after 
approval of the petition. We dismissed a subsequent appeal and a combined motion to reopen and 
motion to 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. 
MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
Any motion to reopen must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reopen, 
but U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has the discretion to excuse a reasonable delay 
was reasonable beyond the petitioner's control. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
The Director denied the petition in June 2019. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that decision 
in June 2020. The Petitioner filed a timely motion to reopen , which we dismissed on November 25 , 
2020. Under guidance then in effect, the Petitioner had 63 calendar days to file a timely motion.1 
Therefore, the Petitioner's second motion was due no later than January 26, 2021 . 
USCIS received the Petitioner's filing on January 4, 2021, but rejected the filing because it did not include 
the correct fee. USCIS issued the rejection notice on February 9, 2021. The Petitioner remailed the 
motion on February 24, 2021, with the correct fee. USCIS accepted the filing on March 1, 2021. 
1 USCIS, Dep't of Homeland Security , USCIS Extends Flexibility for Responding to Agency Requests (Sept. 11 , 2020), 
https :/ /www. uscis. gov/ arc hi ve/uscis-extends- flexi b iii ty-for-responding-to-agency-requests- I . 
The Petitioner asserts on motion that it had relied on the August 2020 publication of a final rule that 
increased the filing fee for appeals and motions, effective October 2, 2020. The Petitioner 
acknowledges that the fee increase never went into effect due to litigation, but the Petitioner asserts 
that "USCIS failed to notify" the Petitioner of this development, leading the Petitioner to submit the 
inconect fee with its January 2021 filing. 2 
The cover page to our November 2020 decision did not specify the filing fee for a motion or refer to 
the 2020 fee rule. Instead, we refened the Petitioner to a page on USCIS' website with "the latest 
information on fee, filing location, and other requirements." The Petitioner neither claims nor 
demonstrates that the website provided inconect fee information in January 2021 when the Petitioner 
attempted to file the motion. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that its delay in filing the present motion was reasonable 
and beyond the Petitioner's control. For this reason, the motion does not meet applicable requirements 
and must be dismissed as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Fmihennore, the motion does not otherwise meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. A motion 
to reopen must state new facts and be supp01ied by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested 
benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 4 73 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have 
the potential to change the outcome). 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it 
pertains to our November 2020 decision dismissing the Petitioner's first motion. 
When we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal in June 2020, we concluded that the Petitioner had not 
overcome the Director's determination regarding the Beneficiary's intended U.S. employment. 
Because this ground is sufficient by itself to warrant denial of the petition, we reserved the other two 
stated grounds for denial. 3 
In our November 2020 decision, we acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of documentation 
relating to the Petitioner's claimed purchase of a liquor store in 2016 and the Petitioner's statement 
that the Beneficiary "serves as an executive" with "responsibilities "far beyond the scope of a manager 
or supervisor." We concluded that the Petitioner's submission did not "demonstrate that the 
Beneficiaiy's job duties with the Petitioner are primarily executive in nature, which appears to be the 
Petitioner's emphasis (for the first time) on motion." We further stated: 
2 The Petitioner also claims: "We have been waiting for this case to be rejected by USCIS, however this has not happened," 
and that USCIS "failed to return our case so that we may resubmit the correct fees." But the motion includes a copy of the 
F ebmary 2021 rejection notice, which states: "Your I-290B, fees, and any supporting documentation is being returned to you." 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2 
The Petitioner has not shown how the Beneficiary's employment in the United States 
meets all four elements of executive capacity as defined in section 101 (a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Nor has the Petitioner shown that the Beneficiary's U.S. employment meets all 
four elements of managerial capacity as defined in section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be primariZY 
engaged in executive or managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities 
alongside the Petitioner's other employees. . . . Thus, the Petitioner has not shown 
proper cause to reopen this proceeding. 
We again reserved the other two grounds for denial of the underlying petition, relating to the 
Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad. 
The Petitioner's motion includes five exhibits. Three of those exhibits are copies of documents 
submitted previously, and therefore they do not introduce new facts into the proceeding. The 
Petitioner contends that we did not properly consider these materials when first submitted, and 
therefore they warrant consideration as new evidence. These documents pertain to the Beneficiary's 
claimed employment abroad, and as we explained in our prior decisions, we have reserved issues 
relating to the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad because the issue of the Beneficiary's 
intended position in the United States is sufficient by itself to determine the outcome ofthe proceeding. 
The fourth exhibit is an undated job description for the Beneficiary's intended U.S. position, which is 
not consistent with the job description submitted previously. Earlier, the Petitioner indicated that one 
ofthe Beneficiary's primary responsibilities would be to "meet with wholesalers, and buyers to market 
the clothing line [ manufactured by] the parent company." The Petitioner's initial submission indicated 
that a key purpose of the Petitioner's new office would be to establish "a full distributorship" for the 
parent company's clothing products. The job description submitted on motion does not mention the 
clothing line at all. The submission of two conflicting job descriptions does not establish proper cause 
to reopen the proceeding. 
The Petitioner describes the fifth motion exhibit as "[a] copy of the 2019 U.S. income tax return for 
the U.S. entity." That tax return, however, is for a liquor store with a different name, different address, 
and different federal Employer Identification Number (EIN) than the Petitioner's. The Petitioner has 
not established the relevance of this document, and therefore its submission does not show proper 
cause for reopening the proceeding. 4 The Petitioner's submission of what is clearly another business's 
tax return, claiming it as its own, raises very serious questions of credibility which we will revisit if 
the Petitioner chooses to further pursue this matter. 
The Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. 
Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, 
we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, 
therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
4 Previously, the Petitioner submitted copies of Assumed Name Certificates filed by both businesses, each showing the 
same assumed name but different addresses. The filing of two separate certificates indicates that the businesses are two 
separate entities, an inference confirmed by the existence of two different EINs. 
3