dismissed L-1A Case: Trucking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16974895 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 14, 2021 
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 nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. 1 Immigration and Nationality Act(the Act) section 101 (a)(l 5)(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, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition. 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 it was doing busines at the 
time it filed this petition in February 2016. The Petitioner has since filed four consecutive motions to 
reconsider, and we have dismissed each motion . The matter is now before us on a fifth motion to 
reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
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 to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
February 27, 2015, unti1February27, 2016. Theregulationat8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation 
one year within the date of approvalofthe petition to support an executiveormanage1ial position . 
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. See8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision." 8 e.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). In this case, the prior decision at issue is our dismissal of the 
Petitioner's fourth motion to reconsider. 
A. Procedural History 
As noted, 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 under the extended petition. We 
dismissed the appeal after reaching the same conclusion. Based on our de nova review of the record, 
we also identified a second ground of ineligibility, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish 1hat 
it was "doing business," as defined at 8 e.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(1 )(ii)(H), at the time it filed this petition in 
February 2016. 
The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, in which it argued that it had met its burden 
to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. We dismissed the 
motion, concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that we had incorrectly applied the law or 
users policy in dismissing its appeal. We also dismissed the Petitioner's motion to reconsider 
because it did not dispute our separate determination that it was not doing business at the time it filed 
the petition. We informed the Petitioner that this omission, by itself, provided a sufficient basis to 
dismiss the motion. 
The Petitioner subsequently filed a second motion to reconsider. We dismissed that motion as untimely 
pursuant to 8 e.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2)(v)(B)(l) because it was not filed within 33 calendar days of the 
date we mailed our previous decision. 2 
The Petitioner then filed a third motion to reconsider, in which it asserted that its second motion should 
have been accepted as timely filed. The Petitioner explained that the filing was only late because 
users had initially improperly rejected and returned the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.3 
We dismissed the third motion, determining that the Petitioner did not establish that our dismissal of 
the prior motion as untimely was based on an incorrect application oflaw or users policy. We also 
addressed the merits of the second motion, advising the Petitioner that we would have dismissed 1he 
motion even if it had been deemed timely filed. Specifically, we emphasized that the Petitioner's first 
motion had been dismissed, in part, because the Petitioner did not dispute our determination that it 
was not doing business when it filed the petition in February 2016. The second motion didnotinclude 
a claim that the dismissal of the initial motion for this reason was based on an incorrect application of 
2 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(l ), 103.8(b). The Petitioner's second motion, which was due on or before May 28, 2019, was 
filed on May 30, 2019, 35 days afterwe mailed our decision. 
3 The record reflects thatthe Petitioner's submission was delivered to the designated filing location onMay2 L 2019, and 
that USCIS returned to the Petitionerwith the explanation that it had eithernot submittedpaymentforthe required fee or 
had submitted payment in an incorrect amount. 
2 
law or USCIS policy and therefore did not meet the requirements for granting a motion to reconsider. 
We also emphasized that, by not disputing our adverse determination regarding the "doing business" 
requirement, the Petitioner had effectively waived or abandoned its claim that it meets that eligibility 
requirement. 
Finally, the Petitioner filed a fomih motion to reconsider in which it once again claimed that its second 
motion had been timely filed, re-submitted some evidence related to that filing, and described some 
of the business activities the Beneficiary has performed on behalf of the company since his initial 
arrival in the United States. The Petitioner also provided copies of financial documents from the years 
201 7 through 2019 which were not previously in the record, along with copies of some previously 
submitted financial documents and business records. 
We dismissed the fomih motion on December 14, 2020, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that we had incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in dismissing the third motion 
to reconsider or that we had erroneously dismissed the second motion as untimely. We also concluded 
that the brief submitted on motion did not establish how the business activities performed by the 
Beneficiary met all elements of the definition of"managerial capacity" at section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the 
Act as discussed in our earlier decisions, or how the previously submitted evidence demonstrated that 
the Petitioner was "doing business," as defined in the regulations, when this petition was filed in 
February 2016. Although the Petitioner also submitted new evidence from the years 2017 to 2019, we 
do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. 203.5(a)(3) (stating that 
a motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
As noted, the matter is now before us on a fifth motion to reconsider. We emphasize that our decision 
here is not an adjudication of the underlying petition, based on a review of the complete record. Rather, 
our review is limited any specific errors that the Petitioner identifies in our December 14, 2020, 
decision. Merely disagreeing with our conclusions does not provide a basis for reconsideration of our 
decision. 
Here, the brief submitted in support of the instant motion repeats arguments made in the Petitioner's 
prior briefs, and does not specifically address our reasons for dismissing the Petitioner's fourth motion, 
state the reasons for reconsideration of that decision, or explain how we incorrectly applied the law or 
USCIS policy by dismissing it. 
Rather, in the instant motion to reconsider, the Petitioner once again addresses our dismissal of its 
second motion to reconsider, claiming that a USCIS error caused it to be filed untimely. The Petitioner 
acknowledges that the motion was initially rejected and returned based on its alleged failure to pay the 
filing fee, or because it paid the incorrect fee. However, it maintains that it did in fact submit a check 
in the appropriate amount with that filing. The Petitioner re-submits a copy of a voided company 
check, dated May 20, 2019, and emphasizes, for the first time, that the check was returned to it bearing 
a stamp that reads "U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services." 
3 
The Petitioner states that the stamp was placed by USCIS and provides sufficient proof that the check 
was in fact included with its initial, timely submitted attempt to file its second motion to reconsider. 
However, as discussed in our June 2020 decision dismissing the third motion, even ifwe determined 
that the second motion to reconsider should have been accepted as timely filed, the motion would have 
been dismissed on its merits because it did not establish eligibility for the benefit sought. As explained 
above, we dismissed the Petitioner's first motion to reconsider, in paii, because it did not address or 
dispute our determination that the record lacked sufficient evidence that the Petitioner was doing 
business as defined in the regulations. By neglecting to dispute one of the two grounds for dismissal 
of appeal in its first motion to reconsider, the Petitioner abandoned its claim that it met this eligibility 
requirement. Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. 
Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at* 1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011)(the court found 
the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). In its second 
motion to reconsider, the Petitioner did not argue that we incorrectly applied law or USCIS policy by 
dismissing the prior motion based, in part, on its failure to address both grounds for dismissal of the 
appeal. Accordingly, we determined that the second motion would have been dismissed even if 
deemed to be timely filed. The Petitioner has not addressed this determination in subsequent filings. 
With the current motion, the Petitioner also resubmits various balance sheets and financial documents 
that are already in the record of proceeding and asserts that the evidence establishes that "our company 
was indeed operating." However, as noted, disagreeing with our conclusions without establishing 
that we erred as a matter oflaw or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence is 
not a ground to reconsider our decision. See Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) 
(finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the patiy may submit, in essence, the 
same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). We explained 
in our decision dismissing the appeal why the balance sheets did not establish that the Petitioner was 
doing business as defined in the regulations. The Petitioner effectively waived the issue by not raising 
it or disputing our determination in its initial motion to reconsider. Further, the Petitioner cannot 
overcome that ineligibility determination by generally disagreeing with our conclusion that it did not 
satisfy the definition of "doing business." 
Nor does the Petitioner's current motion overcome our previous determination that the record does 
not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity under the extended 
petition. The Petitioner has once again described activities performed by the Beneficiary over the last 
several years, but has not explained how the offered position met all elements of the statutory 
definition of "managerial capacity" at section 101 (a)( 44 )(A) of the Act at the time the petition was 
filed in February 2016. In sum, the Petitioner has notdemonstratedthatourpriordecisions were based 
on any incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration of our 
prior decision, nor has it established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4