dismissed L-1A Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20186377 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APRIL 29, 2022 
Form I-129 , Nonimmigrant Petition for an Intracompany Transferee 
The Petitioner, a telecommunications company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(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 petition was filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in March 2018 and 
initially approved in July 2018 . The Beneficiary was issued an L-lA visa in Poland , on 
November 5, 2018) and entered the United States later that month to set up the Petitioner's "new 
office" in New York. The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing 
business in the United States for less than one year. 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). Following a site 
visit of the Petitioner's premises by a USCIS officer in April 2019, however , the Director of the Texas 
Service Center issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approved petition in September 2019 . 
As grounds for revocation the Director indicated that the evidence of record was did not establish that 
(1) sufficient physical premises had been secured to house the new office , as required by the regulation 
at 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A), or that (2) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States within one year of the petition's approval , as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). After receiving the Petitioner 's response to the NOIR , the 
Director issued a decision on December 23, 2019 , revoking the petition 's approval on the first ground 
- that the Petitioner did not establish it had secured sufficient premises to house the new office. 
The Petitioner filed a timely appeal with the AAO , along with some additional documentation . In 
dismissing the appeal on July 16, 2021, we determined that the new evidence still failed to establish 
that the Petitioner had secured sufficient premises to house the new office. In our decision we referred 
to the site visit in April 2019 of the Petitioner 's premises inl I by a USCIS officer , who 
observed that the "office " consisted of one room in a residential apartment that was too small to house 
another employee and contained a single laptop on a coffee table. While the Petitioner claimed that 
the office was equipped with a desktop , two computers, a printer , a scanner, and a fax, no photographs 
or other corroborating evidence was submitted . In the meantime
1 
the Petitioner asserted that its 
business premises were moved in July 2019 to its current address on in I None 
of the materials submitted in support of the appeal, however, consisting for the most part of documents 
dated in the second half of 2019 , linked the Petitioner to its current address onl I or revealed 
anything about those premises. Thus , the record still did not establish that the Petitioner had sufficient 
physical premises to house its new office, and we dismissed the appeal accordingly. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. A motion to reopen 
must state new facts and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. See 8 e.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that the previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or users policy. See 8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). For the reasons discussed 
below, we will dismiss both motions. 
In support of the current motion(s) the Petitioner submits a copy of a statement from its president, the 
Beneficiary, which was initially submitted in October 2019 in response to the Director's NOIR. The 
Beneficiary's statement recounted the purpose of his initial months in the United States ("find an 
office space, research local market, establish business relationships, find and hire local staff'), 
confirmed that its first office was located or A venue in I and asserted that in July 2019 
the business moved to its current office atl I Suite 1740, inl !According to the 
Petitioner, thel loffice had "everything needed for the successful continuation of the 
[business]." While the Beneficiary's statement asserted that photos of both the original office in 
and the current office inl I were attached, no such photos accompanied the response 
to the NOIR. This evidentiary deficiency has not been remedied as no photos of the business premises 
have been submitted in support of the current motion(s). Nor has the Petitioner submitted any other 
evidence relating to its current office inl I such as a lease agreement or other documentation 
showing its size and layout. The only new document submitted with the current motion(s) is a letter 
from counsel which claims that the Petitioner's business is going well, but is unaccompanied by any 
documentary evidence relating to its office in or any other aspect of the business. 
The Petitioner has not stated any new facts in its motion to reopen, nor submitted any new evidence 
in support thereof: as required by 8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Nor has the Petitioner shown that our 
previous decision dismissing the appeal on July 16, 2021, was based on any incorrect application of 
law or users policy, as required for a motion to reconsider under 8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). As the 
Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration of our prior decision, the 
current motions to reopen and reconsider will be dismissed. 1 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 In our previous decision dismissing the appeal we noted that the record does not demonstrate the Petitioner's qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer or the qualifying nature of his work abroad. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). Since the NOIR did not notify the Petitioner of these evidentiary deficiencies, in accordance with the 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii), they do not cunently constitute additional grounds for revocation of the 
petition's approval. In any future proceedings the Petitioner may have to address these issues. 
2