dismissed L-1A Case: Spa Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-C-C- LTD. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 7, 2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an operator of a spa, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its 
president and general manager 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity. We dismissed the subsequent appeal and affirmed the Director's decision. The matter is 
now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's proposed job duties qualify under the 
definitions of both managerial and executive capacity and again points on the previously approved 
L-1 visa petition as an indication that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary are eligible for the benefit 
sought. 1 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider must establish that we based our decision 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. A petitioner must support its motion to reconsider with a pertinent 
precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and 
1 Although the Petitioner refers to our prior decision as a "denial of appeal for beneficiaries," naming the Beneficiary of 
this visa petition and his dependents, the regulations preclude beneficiaries fi·om participating in employment-based 
immigrant visa proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(3) ("A beneficiary of a petition is not a recognized party in [a benefit 
request] proceeding."); and 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B) (for motions and appeals, a beneficiary is not an "affected 
party" with legal standing in a proceeding). Accordingly, USCIS communicates with petitioners and their attorneys of 
record, not the beneficiaries of such petitions. 
Matter ofG-C-C- Ltd. 
Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
\ 
We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility tor the requested 
immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In support of its motion to reconsider, the Petitioner provides a brief highlighting portions of its 
previous claim and contending that the Beneficiary's proposed position would be in a managerial and 
an executive capacity. Although the Petitioner states that it disagrees with the Director's decision to 
deny an L-1 A visa petition after having approved an earlier L-1 A visa petition, it does not cite to any 
published case law to show that our decision affirming the Director's denial was incorrect. Rather, 
the Petitioner cites to one unpublished case and refers to a published District Court decision that we 
cited in our prior decision, where we c;ompared our authority over the service centers to the 
relationship between a court of appeals and a district court and further noted that even if a service 
center Director had previously approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of the Beneficiary, we 
would not be bound to follow a decision that we deemed as contradictory or unsupported by the 
record. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 1999). 
Further, with regard to the Petitioner's reference to an unpublished decision, we note that the 
Petitioner has not established that the facts of this petition are analogous to those in the cited 
decision. Moreover, while 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3( c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on 
USCIS, unpublished decisions are not accorded the same deference. 
As the Petitioner does not cite to any relevant statute, regulation or policy document as required, nor 
does it otherwise allege an incorrect application of law or policy in our prior decision, the Petitioner 
has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter o.fG-C-C- Ltd., ID# 616084 (AAO Sept. 7, 2017) 
2