dismissed L-1A Case: Retail Sales

' identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
l'uimc COP& 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 l(a)(lS)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
V~erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 248 5 1900 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
petitioner appealed this denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). On August 6, 2007, the AAO 
dismissed the appeal. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen and reconsider, in accordance 
with 8 C.F.R. 103.5. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)( 15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Kentucky corporation, states that it intends to 
engage in retail sales. The petitioner states that it is a branch office of located in Mumbai, 
India. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the executive manager of its new office in the United 
States for a period of three 
The director denied the petition on May 26, 2006, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the 
United States company had secured sufficient premises to house the new office; and (2) the size of the United 
States investment and the ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing 
business in the United States. 
The AAO dismissed the petitioner's subsequently filed appeal on August 6, 2007. The AAO concurred with 
the director's two stated grounds for denial of the petition. The AAO further found that the petitioner had 
failed to establish: (1) that the beneficiary had been employed by the petitioner's claimed foreign parent 
company in a primarily managerial or executive capacity as required by 8 C.F.R.5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B); (2) that 
the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial capacity within one year of 
approval of the petition, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C); and (3) that the U.S. petitioner was not a 
qualifying organization as defined at 8 C. F.R. 5 2 14.2(l)(ii)(G)(2). 
On motion, counsel for the petitioner asserts that "the AAO lacked the jurisdiction to conduct de novo review in 
this case," and states that "the decision should be vacated except with respect to the issues presented on appeal." 
With respect to the two issues which formed the basis of the director's denial of the petition, counsel noted that 
the AAO's decision was largely based upon its finding of numerous discrepancies in the record, for which counsel 
accepts responsibility. In this regard, counsel states: 
I am attorney of record for [the petitioner] in connection with its petition for an L-1A visa. Part 
of the services provided to [the petitioner] in representing the company in this matter included 
the preparation of a business plan and other documents. Because I have similar factual scenarios 
presented by different clients, I maintain a selection of "master documents," which I modify to 
meet specific individual circumstances. The numerous discrepancies noted by the AAO in the 
record are the result of my having failed to properly modify the documents. 
Counsel requests that, "[wlith respect to the issues originally presented on appeal, the AAO should consider the 
evidence presented without ascribing the errors of counsel to the petitioner or the petitioner's credibility." 
1 Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(7)(i)(A)(3), if the beneficiary is coming to the United States 
to open or be employed in a new office, the petition may be approved for a period not to exceed one year. 
SRC 05 248 5 1900 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) states: 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3) states: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] policy. A motion 
to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the 
decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4) states, in pertinent part: "A motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed." 
The instant motion consists of counsel's brief rejecting the AAO's authority to conduct a de novo review of 
the record of proceeding, and counsel's statement in which she generally accepts responsibility for any 
discrepancies observed which may have raised doubts regarding the credibility in the petitioner's evidence. 
While counsel has stated a reason for reconsideration, counsel's acknowledgement of her own shortcomings 
in representing the petitioner's case does not establish that the AAO's decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy, and thus does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider as set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). The actual signature portion of the Form 1-129 at part 6 requires the petitioner 
to make the following affirmation: "I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 
America, that this petition and the evidence submitted with it is all true and correct." On that basis alone, the 
petitioner must be held responsible for any discrepancies contained within the record of proceeding.2 
Regardless, while counsel concedes that the AAO's findings of discrepancies in the petitioner's evidence were 
indeed justified, counsel makes no attempt to resolve the discrepancies in this proceeding. It is incumbent 
upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any 
attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Counsel's acknowledgement that she failed to "properly modify" her template documents does not constitute 
The AAO notes that, even if the petitioner was unaware of the documents and information submitted in 
support of the petition, then this failure to apprise itself constitutes deliberate avoidance and does not absolve 
the petitioner of responsibility for the content of the petition or the materials submitted in support. See, e.g., 
Hanna v. Gonzales, 128 Fed. Appx. 478, 480 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (an applicant who signed his 
application for adjustment of status but who disavowed knowledge of the actual contents of the application 
because a friend filled out the application on his behalf was still charged with knowledge of the application's 
contents). 
SRC 05 248 5 1900 
Page 4 
"competent objective evidence," nor does it shed light on the petitioner's actual circumstances as of the date of 
filing this petition. 
Counsel also contends that the AAO must reconsider the decision and vacate its three additional grounds for 
denial of the petition, as it "lacked the jurisdiction to conduct de novo review in this case." Counsel cites to 
no pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the AAO's de novo review was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy. As stated in the AAO's decision, an application or petition that fails to 
comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does 
not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 
229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). The AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). Therefore, when 
the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if it is 
shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. The petitioner has not made such a showing. 
A motion to reopen must provide new facts and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 
C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(2). The "statement of [counsel]" that has been provided on motion is not an affidavit as it 
was not sworn to or affirmed by the declarant before an officer authorized to administer oaths or affirmations 
who has, having confirmed the declarant's identity, administered the requisite oath or affirmation. See Black's 
Law Dictionary 58 (7th Ed., West 1999). Nor, in lieu of having been signed before an officer authorized to 
administer oaths or affirmations, does it contain the requisite statement, permitted by Federal law, that the 
signer, in signing the statements, certifies the truth of the statements, under penalty of perjury. 28 U.S.C. 
$ 1746. Such unsworn statements made in support of a motion are not evidence and thus, as is the case with 
other unsupported assertions of counsel, are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 
464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
As noted above, counsel makes no specific reference to the detailed findings made in the AAO's 1 I-page 
decision and the deficiencies remarked upon therein. No new facts have been provided to support a motion to 
reopen, and no valid reasons have been stated for reconsideration. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed 
for failing to meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. tj 
103.5(a)(4). 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) requires that motions be "[a]ccompanied by a 
statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any 
judicial proceeding." The petitioner's motion does not contain this statement. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 
103.5(a)(4) states that a motion which does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed. Therefore, 
because the instant motion does not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must also be dismissed for this reason. 
Motions for the reopening or reconsideration of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as 
petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See INS v. Doherty, 
502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding 
bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the movant has not met that 
burden. The motion will be dismissed. 
SRC 05 248 5 1900 
Page 5 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not 
be reopened or reconsidered, and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.