dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20682351 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 16, 2022 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an owner and operator of a gas station and convenience store, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the general manager of its new office I in the United States under 
the L-lA nonirnrnigrant 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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity or that he 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States within one year. The 
Petitioner later appealed the Director's decision and we dismissed the appeal. The Petitioner then filed 
a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which we dismissed. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed 
a motion to reopen, which we also dismissed . The matter is again before us on a motion to reopen. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review , we will dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary 's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition , the beneficiary must seek 
to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering their services to the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity . Id. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and scope 
1 The term "new office " refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(l)(l)(ii)(F) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position . 
of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S . investment. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(3)(v). 
The tenn "executive capacity" is defined as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or 
direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances where the petitioner has 
shown "proper cause" for that action . Thus, to merit reopening , a petitioner must not only meet the 
formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause for granting the motion. We 
cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the 
prior adverse decision . As such, we will determine whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts, 
supported by documentary evidence, to warrant reopening of our October 28, 2021, decision. 
As discussed in our prior decisions, which we incorporate here by reference, we determined that the 
Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary had been employed in a primarily executive capacity 
abroad by the foreign entity. 2 We acknowledged that the Beneficiary is the owner of a foreign 
business, but noted that simply managing or directing a business as the owner does not necessarily 
establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive 
capacity within the meaning of section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. In our previous decision, we determined 
that the record did not include probative evidence sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's actual 
duties will primarily be executive in nature. 3 
We further concluded that the description of the Beneficiary's duties for the foreign entity was generic 
and insufficiently detailed, and therefore prohibited a conclusion that the Beneficiary primarily 
performed the tasks of an executive as defined in section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. In addition, we 
noted that despite an organizational chart for the foreign entity identifying a legal advisor, an 
accountant, and a sales manager , subordinate to the Beneficiary, the Petitioner did not offer probative 
evidence demonstrating that the foreign entity employs subordinate staff to perform the actual 
2 As also noted in our prior decisions , since this issue is dispositive , we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner 's 
arguments with respect to the other basis of our prior dismissal on appeal. 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 of L-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) . 
3 The Petitioner does not claim and the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 's duties for the foreign entity are 
in a managerial capacity as defined by section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
2 
day-to-day, non-managerial/non-executive operations of the company, as the record contained no 
evidence supporting the continuous employment of these subordinates. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that it has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
Beneficiary acted in a primarily executive capacity for the foreign business. The Petitioner restates 
the primary duties of the Beneficiary in his position abroad, and claims that the following exhibits, all 
of which were previously submitted, constitute probative evidence of the Beneficiary's executive and 
proprietary authority in the foreign business: 
(1) Mozambique government notice entitled "Exercise of Commercial Activity;" 
(2) Copy of a Shop Rent contract for the foreign business location; 
(3) Mozambique government notice acknowledging the Beneficiary, an Indian 
national, will perform duties as the owner of the foreign entity; 
(4) Copy of the foreign entity's 2019 corporate tax return; and 
(5) Copy of the foreign entity's bank statement covering the period from August 2016, 
through August 2018. 
The Petitioner has still not sufficiently addressed our prior conclusions that the Beneficiary's duties 
were overly generic, nor has it provided probative supporting evidence of his executive level duties 
abroad. As also concluded in our prior decisions, the duty description for the Beneficiary includes 
regular, routine day-to-day operational tasks necessary for the foreign entity to continue to do business, 
and does not include the detailed description and probative evidence necessary to establish the 
Beneficiary primarily performed executive duties for the foreign entity. Although we do not expect 
the Petitioner to detail and document every executive-level task of the Beneficiary abroad, the lack of 
these specifics leaves substantial uncertainty as to whether he primarily acted in a qualifying role. 
Reciting vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations 
require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The actual duties themselves will 
reveal the true nature of the employment. 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). Here, the record does not establish that more 
likely than not, the Beneficiary has performed primarily executive duties for the foreign entity. 
The Petitioner has not presented a new fact to establish that at the time it filed the petition, the 
Beneficiary was employed in a primarily executive capacity abroad. Moreover, the resubmitted 
evidence presented on motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen as set forth at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not submitted new facts or evidence demonstrating proper cause for 
reopening the proceeding, it has not met the requirements of a motion to reopen and the motion must 
be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3