dismissed L-1A Case: Retail Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-G-8- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 3, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a "Convenient Store," seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an Executive 
Manager of its new oftice under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act section I 01 (a)(I5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § II 01 (a)(I5)(L). The Director of 
the Vem1ont Service Center denied the petition and we summarily dismissed appeal. The matter is 
now before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (I) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the 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 bene tit. 
For the purposes of this motion, the scope of our review is limited to the latest decision, which was our 
decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal. Therefore, the issue in this matter is whether we properly 
summarily dismissed the Petitioner's appeal of the Director's revocation decision. The Petitioner's 
motion does not address our decision to summarily dismiss the Petitioner's appeal. As such, the 
Petitioner has not shown proper grounds for the reopening or reconsideration of our decision. 
A review of the record confirms that our summary dismissal of the appeal was warranted. The 
regulations state: "An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when 
the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
for the appeal." 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The Petitioner's appeal consisted of a Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, in which the 
Petitioner indicated that it would submit a brief and/or additional evidence within 30 calendar days 
of filing the appeal. While the Petitioner was not required to submit a brief or additional evidence, 
Part 4 of the Form I-2908 does require the tiling party to provide a separate sheet of paper with a 
statement that specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion or law or fact in the decision being 
appealed. The Petitioner did not submit this required statement and did not supplement the appeal 
Mauer ofS-G-B- INC 
with a brief or evidence after filing it. We properly determined that the regulations required the 
summary dismissal of the appeal. 
The Petitioner has not provided new evidence on motion to establish that it had timely submitted the 
required statement, a briet: or additional evidence to establish a basis for its appeal. Nor has the 
Petitioner stated that our decision to summarily dismiss the appeal was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy. Accordingly, the combined motion will be denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofS-G-B- INC, ID# 1259177 (AAO Apr. 3, 2018) 
2