dismissed L-1A Case: Shipping

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-G-S-A- LTD. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 30,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a shipping company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its operations 
director under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. ~ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA 
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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: ( 1) a qualifying foreign company had continuously employed the 
Beneficiary for at least one year out of the three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition; 
(2) the Beneficiary had been employed abroad in an executive capacity; or (3) the Petitioner would 
employ the Beneficiary in the United States in an executive capacity. We dismissed the Petitioner's 
appeal, and also found that the Petitioner had willfully misrepresented material facts relating to the 
Beneficiary's employment history. 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary violated her B-2 nonimmigrant status by engaging in 
unauthorized employment, and therefore is ineligible tor an extension of stay. The Petitioner contests 
this finding on appeal and again on motion. As we noted in our appellate decision. this finding is 
administratively separate from the petition and not subject to appellate review. ,)'ee 8 C.F.R. ~ 248.3(g). 
Because this issue lies outside our appellate jurisdiction and we have no authority to withdraw the 
finding, we will not address it here. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. On motion. 
the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that we erred when we found that the 
Beneficiary began working for the Petitioner's foreign subsidiary in 2015 rather than 2013. 
We will deny both motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application qf law or poliLy. We will discuss the requirements of each type of 
Matter ofS-G-S-A- Ltd. 
motion below. We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen the proceeding 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-2908, 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. ,~'ce 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
II. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 
The Petitioner states that its prior attorney has been ''out of the country and unable to help," and 
therefore it has hired new counsel. The Petitioner states that, as a result. there has been a delay in 
obtaining additional new evidence, and the new attorney has not had enough time to prepare a 
comprehensive motion. The Petitioner asks that we "accept this timely appeal and hold adjudication 
of it in abeyance while Petitioner gathers the remaining documents needed to fully support this 
motion." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(l )(i) allows us the discretion to accept the late filing of a 
motion to reopen if the delay was reasonable and beyond the Petitioner's control. There is no 
provision, however, to allow the Petitioner to supplement a motion that has already been filed. and 
there is no regulation requiring us to suspend adjudication indefinitely while the Petitioner seeks 
additional evidence.' 
We note that the Petitioner does not identify ''the remammg documents," say where they are, 
estimate the time necessary to obtain them, or explain why the Petitioner needed to obtain them 
through its previous attorney rather than from the actual sources of the evidence in China or at the 
petitioning company itself. There is no persuasive basis to conclude that the unidentified documents 
exist. We note that more than five months have passed since the Petitioner tiled the motion. 
substantially longer than the 30 days ordinarily permitted for the preparation and tiling of a motion. 
To date. the record contains no fmiher submission from the Petitioner. We consider the record to be 
complete. 
III. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
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. § 1 03.5(a)(3 ). A motion to reconsider must be supported by a 
1 
The USC IS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.3(a)(2)(vii) permits the petitioner to supplement an appeal after tiling it, but 
there is no parallel provision for motions to reopen. The motion must, therefore. be complete at the time of filing. 
2 
Matter ofS-G-S-A- Ltd. 
pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security policy. 
In this instance, the Petitioner has not identified any incorrect application of law or policy. Also. the 
Petitioner disputes our factual findings but does not explain how these findings were incorrect in the 
context of the evidence in the record at the time of our prior decision. Instead, the Petitioner relies 
on new evidence - some submitted on motion, and some to be submitted at an unspecified future 
date. New evidence pertains to motions to reopen, and therefore the submission of new evidence is 
not grounds for reconsideration. 
The Petitioner has not established that our decision was based on an incorrect application law or 
users policy, or that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of that 
decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
IV. MOTION TO REOPEN 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by at1idavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § l 03.5(a)(2). The Petitioner has 
submitted some evidence that is new to the record. For the reasons explained below, however, we 
find that this evidence does not warrant reopening of the proceeding or approval of the petition. 
A. Legal Framework 
To establish eligibility for the L-1A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary '"in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge,'' for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101 (a)( 15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or at1iliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
B. Employment in an Executive Capacity 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been employed in an executive capacity abroad, and 
that it will employ her in an executive capacity in the United States. An executive capacity is 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 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the Act. 
3 
.
Matter ofS-G-S-A- Ltd. 
1. One Year of Employment Abroad 
The Petitioner must have engaged in qualifying employment for the Petitioner or a related 
employer, for at least one continuous year during the three years preceding the filing of the petition 
in May 2016. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary met this 
requirement by working as the chief financial oHicer for its foreign subsidiary in 
from May 2013 until she entered the United States in November 2015. 
We found that the Petitioner worked for a different company for most of that time. and that the 
Petitioner had willfully misrepresented material facts regarding the Beneficiary's claimed 
employment in order to create the appearance of qualifying past employment. Further details appear 
in our earlier decision dated April 27, 2017. 
The Petitioner had submitted the Beneficiary's resume. indicating that she worked as deputy general 
manager of an unrelated company, from August 
2009 to April 2013, and at TPS from May 2013 onward. The resume did not indicate any 
employment at after April 2013. 
The Petitioner submitted "wage lists'' purporting to show that the Beneficiary received a monthly 
salary from from May 2013 to February 2016. Several wage lists were printed on the same 
page, demonstrating that the lists were printed after the fact: they were not contemporaneous 
documents prepared at the time of payment. Bank records showed that the Petitioner gave the 
Beneficiary a $20,000 "travel advance" in January 2016. 
We found that the 
wage lists were not persuasive evidence of employment for two principal reasons. 
First, they showed payment for several months after the Beneficiary arrived in the United States. 
Therefore, the payments could not have been necessarily contingent on continued work for the 
foreign company. Second, other documents in the record did not corroborate the Beneficiary's 
claimed employment at before June 2015. These documents included an employment contract 
and a We also noted that, when the 
Beneficiary applied tor nonimmigrant visas in 2014 and 2015. the Beneficiary identified her then-
current employer as rather than We f()lmd that the Petitioner had not corroborated the claim 
that the Beneficiary had worked tor since 2013. 
In an affidavit submitted on motion , the Beneficiary states that , since early 2013. she has 
simultaneously held executive positions with and with the latter position being "a less 
hands-on role focused on corporate governance." When weighing the credibility and sufficiency of 
this new affidavit, we must consider corroborating evidence or the lack thereof: as well as how 
consistent the new claims are with the Petitioner's prior assertions. 
The Petitioner submits copies of municipal documents consistent with continued employment in 
after 2013. These materials are entirely consistent with our finding that the Beneficiary continued 
4 
.
Matter ofS-G-S-A- Ltd 
working for -based after 2013. It would serve no purpose for us to reopen the proceeding 
based on documents that confirm a finding we have already made. 
As we noted in our April 27, 2017 decision, the Petitioner has not claimed or established that has a 
qualifying relationship with the petitioning U.S. employer as a branch, aftiliate. parent or subsidiary. 
Therefore, the Beneficiary's employment with cannot establish eligibility for the benefit sought in 
this proceeding. 
The newly submitted materials show that the Beneficiary worked for in after 2013, but they 
do not show that the Beneficiary began working for in before 2015. This is significant 
because the Beneficiary's eligibility relies on past employment with not with The Petitioner 
was demonstrably able to obtain and submit copies the documents with a timely motion. The 
Petitioner states that it "has not had an opportunity to collect sufficient evidence" relating to the 
Beneficiary's claimed employment with in The Petitioner does not explain why one type 
of evidence is harder to obtain than the other, when both concern claims of employment during the 
same period of time. The Petitioner does not explain what evidence it is trying to obtain , or provide 
documentation showing that it has begun making inquiries to obtain it. 
As we noted in our prior decision. the Beneficiary's employment contract with is dated June I. 
2015, with a 30-day "probationary period." The Petitioner has not explained how this document is 
consistent with a May 2013 hiring date. 
The Petitioner states that the 
"showed the government benefits paid to Beneficiary for part of her employment with 
The document shows the "Starting Time ofPaymenf' as June 2015. The unsuppotted claim 
that the document represents only "part of her employment" has no weight as evidence. 
The Petitioner has not overcome our finding that the Beneficiary appears to have begun working for 
in 2015, not 2013, as claimed. The Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the 
proceeding in this regard. 
The Petitioner disputes our finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact, but offers no other 
substantive response. The Petitioner repeats the assertion that it is seeking additional evidence to 
rebut the finding , but no further evidence is in the record. The new documents submitted on motion 
are consistent with the finding that not employed the Beneficiary in 2013-2015. The 
Petitioner's assertion that it will submit unidentified evidence at an unspecified future time is not a 
valid basis for granting the motion or for indefinitely suspending its adjudication. 
2. U.S. Employment in an Executive Capacity 
In our appellate decision , we agreed with the Director's finding that the Petitioner had not 
established that it would employ the Beneficiary in a primarily executive capacity . 
5 
Matter qfS-G-S-A- Ltd. 
As detailed in our April 2017 decision, we found that "the Petitioner has not consistently described 
the Beneficiary's duties or shown them to meet the requirements of an executive capacity."' With 
respect to the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary"s executive authority would extend to foreign 
subsidiaries, we found: "The Petitioner has not provided enough information about the larger 
organization to support the claim that the Beneficiary would direct the management of the 
subsidiaries and establish their goals and policies." 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that this finding was in error, but the Petitioner offers no 
substantive support for this assertion. Instead, the Petitioner repeats the assertion that it requires 
more time to prepare supporting documents. Neither the Beneficiary's affidavit nor the new 
evidence submitted on motion relate to this ground for the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore. the 
Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the proceeding in this regard. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not submit new evidence which overcame our prior findings or otherwise 
established eligibility. The Petitioner also did not establish that our earlier decision was in error 
when we issued it. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter (~fS-G-S-A- Ltd., ID# 811112 (AAO Nov. 30, 2017)