dismissed L-1A Case: Travel And Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF U-E-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 31,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a travel services, management consulting, and import and export business, seeks to 
extend1 the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its managing member under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 10l(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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity under the extended petition. The Petitioner appealed the Director's decision and 
we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed three combined motions to 
reopen and reconsider, which we denied. 
The matter is now before us again on a fourth combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On 
motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that we applied "improper standards" 
when denying the previous motion. The Petitioner contends that the evidence offered in support of 
this motion warrants approval of the petition and argues that it had sufficient staff to support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial position and relieve him from having to primarily perform the 
operational tasks required for the organization's daily function at the end of its initial year of 
operations. 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion. 
1 
The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf, the validity of which expired on 
May 9, 2014. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States through a parent, 
branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C. F. R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an 
executive or managerial position. 
.
Matter of U-E-, LLC 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as 
submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), 
and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must ( 1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103 .5( a)(2). A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for 
reconsideration; (2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time ofthe initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The primary focus of this decision is to determine whether the Petitioner has overcome our denial of 
its third combined motion to reopen and reconsider, where we contemplated whether the Petitioner 
established that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, as defined 
at sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) ofthe Act, under the extended petition? 
For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. 
While the current motion includes newly submitted evidence and assertions that we incorrectly 
applied the law and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy to the facts presented, the 
Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsiderati'on. 
A. Previous AAO Decision 
In denying the Petitioner's third motion to reopen and reconsider, we determined that the record on 
motion did not support a finding that the Beneficiary's duties, at the expiration of the new office 
petition, would have been primarily of a managerial nature. We found that the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently clarify the nature of the Beneficiary's duties or establish that such duties would be 
primarily managerial or executive in nature, although we did not question his level of authority over 
the company as its senior employee. We noted that the record showed no U.S .. employees or 
contractors who were claimed to be involved in the travel services segment of the business in May 
2014 and questioned why the Beneficiary was identified as the booking representative ifthe India­
based director of travels, was performing travel-related duties as the Petitioner claims was 
the case. We found that, contrary to the Petitioner's claims, the record indicates that the Beneficiary 
was significantly involved in non-managerial duties related to the travel and import-export 
businesses, not to mention that the Beneficiary was solely responsible for the consulting line of the 
Petitioner's business, as the Petitioner readily admitted. 
2 
As noted, the previously approved new office petition expired on May 9, 2014, and the Petitioner must establish 
eligibility as of that date. 
2 
.
Matter of U-E-, LLC 
As in our earlier decisions, we again considered the nature of the Petitioner's business, along with its 
staffing levels, organizational structure, and stage of development at the end of its initial year of 
operations. In doing so, we identified multiple discrepancies concerning the employment of 
whom the Petitioner identified as its India-based director of travels, noting that the record was 
inconsistent as to date of hire, his wages, his job title, and his job duties, the latter of which 
were recently altered to include a subordinate assistant manager who had not been mentioned at any 
time earlier in these proceedings. Ultimately, while we acknowledged that the Petitioner provided some 
supporting evidence of involvement in its travel services business, we observed that the 
evidence dated back only to June 2014 and does not establish that he relieved the Beneficiary from 
providing the company's travel services at the time the Petitioner sought to extend the Beneficiary's 
L-1 A status. 
We also questioned the change in position title from that of "office manager" to 
"manager operations" as well as his altered duties, which were amended on motion to include travel­
related services as opposed to general office management duties, as previously claimed. We further 
found that the record lacked evidence to support the claim that the Beneficiary was overseeing "senior 
level managers" at the time of the requested extension. Finally, we acknowledged that the Petitioner 
likely had some assistance from an outside accountant and staff responsible for its import and 
distribution activities as of May 2014, but found that the evidence did not show that the Petitioner had 
sufficient staff to support the Beneficiary in the travel and consulting lines of business at the time it 
sought to extend his status. 
The newly submitted evidence does not overcome the grounds for denial of the previous motion and 
establish eligibility for the benefit. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the 
proceeding. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
As in our prior decisions, we stress again that in order to establish merit for reopening our latest 
decision, the Petitioner must: (1) provide 
new facts relevant to the most recent decision. and (2) support 
those facts with affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We interpret "new 
facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on motion and that have not been previously 
submitted in the proceeding. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided 
evidence does not constitute "new facts." 
In the present matter, the supporting legal brief is primarily comprised of previously raised arguments 
that we addressed in one of our prior decisions. While the Petitioner disagrees with our prior decision 
and contends that it previously submitted evidence that would have changed the result in this case, we 
point to the detailed analysis contained in each of our previously issued decisions, where we noted 
specific inconsistencies and deficiencies in the record that served as grounds for dismissing the 
Petitioner's appeal and denying its three subsequent motions. The Petitioner cannot continue 
tiling 
motions in an effort to overcome deficiencies it had the opportunity to overcome on appeal. 
3 
.
Matter of U-E-, LLC 
On motion, the Petitioner submits documents in an attempt to support the assertion that the Beneficiary 
was relieved from having to primarily perform non-managerial duties through an existing support stati 
that was in place in May 2014. Such documents include a tour itinerary that was emailed in February 
2014. While the Petitioner claims that prepared the itinerary under the Beneficiary's 
direction, the email containing the itinerary originated from the Beneficiary and therefore does not 
support the Petitioner's claim. Despite mentioning as a contact who is able to provide 
information about the stated itinerary, 
the record does not establish that the Beneficiary was not directly 
involved in the underlying non-managerial tasks of creating the itinerary. The level of 
involvement, if any, is unclear and the follow-up June 2014 email from does not impart any 
new information, since we had already acknowledged in our prior decision that the record contained 
evidence of involvement in the Petitioner's travel business dating back to .June 2014. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide independent, objective evidence resolving the multiple 
inconsistencies we previously noted with regard to date of hire, wages, job title, and job 
duties or with regard to position title and assigned job duties. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Lastly, while the Petitioner submits an affidavit from the Beneficiary, which in itself is "new" because it 
was not submitted previously, the content of the affidavit does not offer "new facts" and merely restates 
information that had been previously submitted either in support of the previously tiled motions or in 
support of the appeal. Therefore, the affidavit, along with other supporting evidence that is part of the 
current motion, does not show proper cause to reopen the proceeding. 
C. Motion to Reconsider 
In denying the motion to reconsider, we addressed the Petitioner's reference to Matter ofZ-A-. Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016), finding that it did not establish that the facts in 
this matter are similar to those in the cited case. The Petitioner's continued reliance on the same 
decision in support of the current motion will therefore not be addressed further. Likewise, the 
Petitioner's reference to our unpublished decisions also does not warrant reconsideration of our prior 
decision. As previously stated, while we are bound by published decisions in the administration of 
the Act, we are not similarly bound by decisions that are unpublished. See 8 C.F.R. § 103..3(c). 
Lastly, in dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we agreed with the Director that by the end of its first 
year of operation the Petitioner had not grown to a stage in its development where it could support 
the Beneficiary in a managerial position by relieving him from having to primarily engage in the 
performance of non-managerial tasks. In three subsequent decisions, we affirmed our original 
finding and provided substantive grounds that prevented the reopening and reconsideration of our 
decision on appeal. Because this decision is not a de novo re-adjudication of the appeal or the 
underlying petition, we will not repeat our prior analysis here. 
As discussed above, evidence submitted with this motion does not establish that the Petitioner was 
able to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity at the end of its first year of operation. 
Therefore, this motion to reconsider establishes no error in our prior findings. 
4 
Matter of U-E-, LLC 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity under the extended petition. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied, 
Cite as Matter o.fU-E-, LLC, ID# 593312 (AAO Aug. 31, 2017) 
5