dismissed L-1A Case: Sportswear Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K- LTD. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN.l7,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a sportswear design and manufacturing company, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its administrator and project 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. § 110l(a)(l5)(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. 
Tlie Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive position under 
the extended petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. On motion, the Petitioner submits a Jetter from 
its managing CEO, who suggests that our decision displays a lack of understanding of the submitted 
evidence, the nature of the Beneficiary's duties, and the nature of the Petitioner's industry. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. \ 
I. LAW 
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-290B, 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(4). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), "Requirements for motion to reopen," states: 
A motion to reopen must [ ( 1)] state the new facts to be provided in the reopened 
" proceeding and [(2)] be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
(b)(6)
Matter of K- Ltd. 
This provision is supplemented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form l-290B, which states: 
Motion to Reopen: The motion must state new facts and must be supported by 
affidavits and/or documentary evidence demonstrating eligibility at the time the 
underlying petition ... was filed. 1 
The new facts addressed in a motion to reopen must possess such significance that, "if proceedings .. 
. were reopened, with all the attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the 
result in the case." Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. 
Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-40 (lOth Cir. 2013). . 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the motion to reopen. 
' ' 
We denied the petition based on a finding that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in an ex'ecutive capacity under the extended petition. We acknowledged the Petitioner's 
claim that the Beneficiary is responsible for the research and planning of a manufacturing reshoring 
project that would result in the construction and operation of the company's first U.S.-based 
manufacturing facility. However, we determined that the evidence showed that this project, as of the 
date of filing, was still in the planning stage, and that many of the duties attributed to the Beneficiary, 
including her eventual management of subordinate contractors and employees, remained prospective in 
nature despite the fact that the Beneficiary was initially granted L-lA status in October 2009. Further, 
we found that the Beneficiary's ongoing duties related to the planning, research and development of the 
factory were not primarily executive in nature, as the record did not show that she had staff to relieve her 
from performing non-qualifying research and administrative duties. 
In denying the petition, we also noted that there were some inconsistencies in the record regarding the 
Petitioner's physical business location. Finally, we noted that the Petitioner, a company originally 
established as a Nevada limited liability company, but operating in Texas, had a corporate status of 
"permanently revoked" in the State ofNevada. We advised the Petitioner that it would need to address 
this corporate status if it chose to pursue this matter further, but noted that neither of these issues formed 
the basis for the denial of the petition. · 
The Petitioner's motion to reopen consists of the Form l-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and a Jetter 
from its managing CEO. Upon review, has adequately addressed our 
concerns regarding the Petitioner's location and business address, and its corporate status. Our 
comments regarding these matters are withdrawn. 
1 
The regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 103 .2(a)( I) states in pertinent part : " Every benefit request or other document submitted to 
DHS must be executed and filed in accordance with the form instructions , notwithstanding any provision of 8 CFR 
chapter I to the contrary , and such instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission." 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of K- Ltd 
However, as to the grounds for denial of the petition, the Petitioner has not submitted "new facts" in 
support of a motion to reopen. Rather, the Petitioner offers a paragraph-by-paragraph critique of our 
decision without offering new facts that would overcome our prior decision. 
For example, in response to our finding that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that construction of 
its factory was completed , had begun, or was even imminent, states: "How a factory could 
be built or even started to be built when the Petitioner is relying on the Beneficiary to be granted an L-1 
visa? That would be corporate negligence. " As we noted in our decision , the Beneficiary in this matter 
has held an L-lA visa since October 2009 and the Petitioner maintains that she was originally 
transferred to the United States to perform the duties assigned to her in the instant petition. The 
Beneficiary has had 5 years .to carry out the various stages of researching and developing a new 
manufacturing facility and, based on statement on motion, has not progressed beyond the 
point of creating a facility plan and costing and evaluating machinery to be purchased in the future. 
While we understand that manufacturing workers would be hired upon completion of the build, the 
Petitioner has not explained how the research duties assigned to the Beneficiary in the interim qualifY as 
executive-level tasks as defined at section 101 (a)( 44)(B) of the Act or provided evidence that she has 
staff to assist her with non-executive, operational and administrative aspects of the initial stages of this 
long-term project. The record shows that the Beneficiary has been given responsibility for a major 
project, but does not show that her actual day-to-day duties, as of the date of the requested extension 
and given the progress of the project at that time, were primarily executive in nature. While performing 
non-qualifying tasks will not automatically disqualify a beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the 
majority of a beneficiary's duties, a petitioner still has the burden of establishing that a beneficiary 
will "primarily" performing managerial or executive duties. See section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. 
On motion, the Petitioner emphasizes the value of the Beneficiary's experience with the Petitioner 's 
international organization , her qualifications for the position, and 
the expected benefits of locating its 
manufacturing facility in the United States. We did not question the Beneficiary's experience or 
qualifications or the Petitioner's business decision to eventually build a factory in the United States. 
Rather, we determined that the evidence of record did not show how this reshoring project could 
currently support an executive-level employee. 
Finally, several of the issues raised in the Petitioner's letter on motion were already reviewed , 
considered , and thoroughly addressed in our previous decision dismissing the Petitioner 's appeal. 
' Therefore, those issues raised in the letter are not new facts satisfying the motion to reopen standard. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Accordingly, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
The Petitioner should note that, unless USCJS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion to reopen or 
reconsider does not stay the execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set departure 
date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
3 
Matter of K- Ltd. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
Accordingly, the motion will be denied, the proceedings will not be reopened, and our previous 
decision will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of K- Ltd., ID# 186764 (AAO Jan. 17, 2017) 
z 
4