dismissed L-1A Case: Scrap Metal

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20882853 
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 : JUN 03, 2022 
The Petitioner, an operator of a scrap metal business, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its "Executive" under the L-IA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 10l(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition and dismissed the Petitioner's 
following three combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be employed in the 
United States, in a managerial or executive capacity, as required to establish eligibility for this 
classification. We summarily dismissed the Petitioner's appeal of that decision, concluding that it did 
not specify an erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact in the Director's decision as a basis for 
the appeal. See 8 C.F.R . § 103.3(a)(l)(v) . The Petitioner subsequently filed three combined motions 
to reopen and reconsider, which we dismissed. The matter is now before us again on a fourth combined 
motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review , we will dismiss both motions . 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements and show 
proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l). 
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). A motion to reconsider must (1) 
state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the challenged decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) 
demonstrate that the decision was incorrect based on the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. 
103.5(a)(3). 
II. MOTION TO REOPEN 
The Petitioner's motion includes a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, a brief: and a table of 
exhibits summarizing evidence that was previously provided. The Petitioner's brief does not state 
new facts nor is it supported by documentary evidence; therefore, its motion does not meet the 
requirements for a motion to reopen stated at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Because the motion does not 
meet applicable requirements, we must dismiss it. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
III. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
In its brief in support of the instant motion, the Petitioner maintains that the Director erroneously 
denied the petition. The Petitioner contends that the Director overlooked evidence and failed to apply 
relevant case law in concluding that the Beneficiary was not employed abroad, and would not be 
employed in the United States, in a managerial capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Notwithstanding the alleged misapplications of law, we must dismiss the motion because it does not 
address or challenge our most recent decision. The review of any motion is narrowly limited to the 
basis for the prior adverse decision. Here, although the Petitioner's brief on motion addresses the 
Director's denial of the underlying petition, the subject of the immediate prior decision was our 
dismissal of the Petitioner's third combined motion to reopen and reconsider; we have not issued a 
decision on the merits of the underlying petition because we summarily dismissed the Petitioner's 
appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). None of the Petitioner's prior motions have included 
new facts demonstrating that the appeal should be reopened, nor have they established that our decision 
to summarily dismiss the appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy based 
on the record before us at the time of the decision. 
The current motion to reconsider cites caselaw relevant to the grounds of the underlying denial of the 
petition, these citations are not relevant to our most recent decision which stems from our summary 
dismissal of the appeal. As we have consistently concluded in dismissing the last three motions, if the 
Petitioner wishes to challenge the petition's denial in the future, it must first demonstrate that we erred 
in summarily dismissing its appeal. The Petitioner has not provided probative reasons establishing 
that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, nor has it shown proper 
cause to reconsider the previous decision. Accordingly, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established proper grounds for reopenmg or 
reconsideration. Accordingly, the motions to reopen and reconsider will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2