dismissed L-1A Case: Trucking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24544119 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 11, 2023 
The Petitioner, which is self-described as a trucking business, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its chief executive officer under the L-1 A non immigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . 1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S .C. 
§ l 101(a)(15)(L). The L-IA 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, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. We dismissed 
the Petitioner's subsequent appeal of that decision on the same ground and on the additional ground 
that the Petitioner did not establish, as required , that it was doing business at the time it filed this 
petition in February 2016. The Petitioner has since filed seven motions to reconsider, and we have 
dismissed each motion . The matter is now before us on an eighth motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion 
to reconsider. 
A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider a prior decision to instances where the 
Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. A motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
As noted above, the Director denied the petition based on a determination that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity as defined at section 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary 's behalf which was approved for the period 
February 27, 2015, until February 27, 2016. 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. 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. We dismissed the appeal after reaching the same conclusion. Further, based 
on our de novo review of the record on appeal, we identified a second ground of ineligibility and 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that it was "doing business," as defined at 8 e.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H), at the time it filed this petition in February 2016. We have dismissed the 
Petitioner's seven subsequent motions to reconsider. Our prior decisions are part of the record of 
proceedings and are incorporated herein by reference. 
As we have emphasized in our previous decisions, the scope of a motion is limited by regulation to 
"the prior decision." 8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Petitioner 
has provided proper cause for reconsideration of our decision dated August 4, 2022, in which we 
dismissed its seventh motion to reconsider. 
In that decision, we acknowledged that the Petitioner had broadly asserted in its brief that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity and that the company was doing business 
when it filed the petition in February 2016. However, we concluded that the Petitioner did not provide 
specific reasons for reconsideration of our decision dated December 16, 2021, in which we dismissed 
its sixth motion. Although the Petitioner submitted a brief in support of the seventh motion, it did not 
directly address the conclusions we reached in our prior decision or claim that we misapplied law or 
policy in dismissing the prior motion. We emphasized that merely expressing disagreement with an 
adverse decision is not sufficient to meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider under 8 e.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(3). See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to 
reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in essence, the same brief and seek 
reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). Rather, the moving party must 
demonstrate that the immediate prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or users 
policy. 
In support of the current motion to reconsider, the Petitioner submits a brief that is substantially similar 
to the brief provided in support of its seventh motion to reconsider, with much of the language copied 
verbatim from the earlier brief It generally objects to the denial of the petition and subsequent 
dismissals of its appeal and motions, claims that the Petitioner and Beneficiary are eligible for the 
requested benefit, and asserts that the petition should have been approved based on the evidence of 
record. The Petitioner does not, however, provide reasons for reconsideration or demonstrate that we 
misapplied the law or users policy in our dismissal of its most recent motion to reconsider. In fact, 
the Petitioner does not directly address our immediate prior decision, beyond noting the date the 
decision was issued. Therefore, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not meet the requirements 
stated at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
For the reason discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for 
reconsideration of our prior decision. As the motion does not meet all the requirements of a motion 
to reconsider, it must be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2