dismissed L-1A Case: Retail Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-G- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 8, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, identified in the petition form as an "investment/management company," operates a 
gas station/convenience store. 1 It seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as 
"Executive Director" under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 2 See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) Section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, concluding 
that the Petitioner did not meet the regulatory requirements. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner addresses the merits of the original denial decision, arguing that the 
Beneficiary has been and would continue to be employed in an executive capacity. The Petitioner 
does not claim that the Director's decision denying the motion to reconsider was incorrect. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Director correctly denied the motion to reconsider. Therefore, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration; 
(2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
1 At the time of filing, the Petitioner's operation consisted of a gas station/convenience store and one vape store. 
2 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
September 24, 2015, until September 23, 2016. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the 
United States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 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 one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
3 The petition was originally denied based on the determination that the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that it 
would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under an extended petition. The Petitioner then filed 
a motion to reopen, which the Director granted resulting in a new decision where the Director affirmed the denial of the 
petition. The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which is the subject of this proceeding. 
Matter of A-G- LLC 
incorrect application of law or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion 
that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
The issue now before us is whether the Director's decision denying the Petitioner's motion to 
reconsider was correct. 
Although the Petitioner cites Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016), 
to support the motion to reconsider, it does not establish that the Director's decision to deny the motion 
was contrary to the guidelines set out in the adopted decision, whose goal was to clarify which factors 
are relevant in the case of a function manager who has no direct subordinates. In this matter, the 
Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be employed as a function manager in a managerial 
capacity; rather, it claims that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. Moreover, 
the Petitioner does not provide evidence demonstrating that the Director in this matter failed to comply 
with the guidelines in the adopted decision. Therefore, the Director was correct in denying the 
Petitioner's motion to reconsider. 
After reviewing the arguments in the brief submitted in support of the motion to reconsider, we find 
that the Petitioner did not adequately articulate reasons for reconsideration. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-G-LLC, ID# 2267830 (AAO May 8, 2019) 
2