dismissed L-1A Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 24, 2024 In Re: 34100342 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a telecommunications/electrical installation company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
as "general project manager" at its "new office" in the United States. 1 The company requests his 
classification under the L-lA nonimmigrant visa category. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). This category allows qualified employees of 
multinational businesses to transfer to the United States to temporarily work in managerial or 
executive capacities. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity or that he worked abroad in one of those capacities. Affirming the Director' s decision as to 
the Beneficiary's foreign work, we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. See In Re: 31090915 (AAO 
May 2, 2024). We reserved opinion on the nature of the proposed U.S. work. Id. 
The matter returns to us on the Petitioner's motion to reconsider. The company asserts that, as sole 
owner of his foreign employer, the Beneficiary inherently worked abroad in both managerial and 
executive capacities. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon 
review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision misapplied law or policy based on the 
evidence at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). On motion, the scope of our review may 
not go beyond our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
1 The term "new office" means an organization that, at the time of a petition 's filing, had been doing business in the United 
States for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F) . 
TI. ANALYSIS 
Our prior decision states that an L-lA beneficiary must have primarily worked abroad in a managerial 
or executive capacity, as opposed to having performed primarily operational duties. See section 
10l(a)(44)(A), (B) of the Act (defining the terms "managerial capacity" and "executive capacity"); 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B) (requiring a beneficiary of a new office petition to have previously 
worked in an executive or managerial capacity); see also Matter ofChurch Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593, 604) ("An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to 
provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity.") 
On motion, however, the Petitioner contends that those rules: 
do not apply to this particular case because the beneficiary, as beneficial owner of the 
parent company, has inherently both capacities: executive and managerial. 
It would be unreasonable to think that an individual with an ownership interest such as 
the one held by the beneficiary ... , who additionally has an absolute duty to preserve 
the good standing and success of a company and its employees and other related 
members [ should] not be considered as a person with those duties and obligations of a 
manager or executive. Moreover, there is an inherent power over the labor aspect of 
the company, to decide who is suitable to be hired as an employee, manager or vendor 
and who is terminated or dismissed of duties if necessary. There is an implied duty to 
always seek the best interest of the company as it is the duty of a manager, more 
importantly when the one manager is also the owner of the company. Furthermore, in 
the evidence presented in [response to the Director's request for evidence], several 
agreements whereby the beneficiary created contractual obligations on behalf of the 
parent company showed that the beneficiary not only acted as a project manager but 
also as one with full capacity to contractually obligate the company. 
The Petitioner's argument does not persuade us. The company cites no legal authority allowing such 
special treatment of L-1 A beneficiaries who solely own their foreign employers, nor are we aware of 
any. Rather, the Act requires that a beneficiary have "primarily" worked abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity consistent with the definitional elements of each term. See section 10l(a)(44)(A), 
(B) of the Act. 
Our decision on the Petitioner's argument regarding the nature of the Beneficiary's foreign work 
resolves this motion. We therefore need not consider and hereby continue to reserve opinion on 
whether he would work in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 
requested benefit or our prior decision's misapplication oflaw or policy. 
2 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3