dismissed L-1A Case: Trucking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 31, 2024 In Re: 32803969 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a trucking company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary in the United States 
as a logistics manager in its new office I under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 10l(a)(l5)(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 California Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds, concluding that 
the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner had a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer; (2) the Petitioner secured sufficient physical premises to house its new 
office; (3) the Beneficiary was employed abroad for one continuous year in the three years preceding the 
date the petition was filed; ( 4) the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
abroad; and (5) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States within one year of the date the petition was filed. 
The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen. The Director granted the motion, but following 
additional review, concluded that the petition would remain denied. The Petitioner then filed an appeal 
that we rejected as untimely. We then dismissed the Petitioner's combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider, as well as two subsequent motions to reconsider, and the matter is now before us on a motion 
to reopen. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
1 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(l)(l)(ii)(F) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
We dismissed the Petitioner's first combined motion to reopen and reconsider, determining that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that our decision to reject its appeal was erroneous. In considering 
the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reconsider, although we did not agree that the Petitioner filed a 
timely appeal, we nonetheless reconsidered the Director's decision to deny the petition and provided 
the Petitioner with a decision fully addressing one of the denial grounds on January 25, 2021. Namely, 
we identified critical evidentiary deficiencies, including discrepancies regarding the Petitioner's name 
and whether it was formed as a partnership or corporation, and concluded that the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer do not meet regulatory criteria for a qualifying relationship either as 
parent and subsidiary or as affiliates. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(K) and (L) (for definitions of 
subsidiary and affiliate, respectively). We determined that the qualifying relationship issue was 
dispositive of the Petitioner's motion and therefore we declined to reach the Petitioner's arguments 
with respect to the other denial grounds. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The Petitioner subsequently filed a second motion to reconsider, which we dismissed on July 6, 2021. 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it 
pertains to our latest decision dismissing the Petitioner's motion to reconsider. 
In our latest decision, incorporated here by reference, we determined that the Petitioner did not 
establish that we misinterpreted the ownership breakdowns of the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer or that we incorrectly applied the regulatory definitions of "subsidiary" and 
"affiliate" to these ownership breakdowns. We further determined that the Petitioner did not cite any 
precedent decisions or USCIS policy establishing that our decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record at the time of our prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
In addition, while we acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that it intended to operate in the United 
States as a partnership upon dissolution of its corporate status, we noted that this claim did not establish 
that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of our prior decision. 
We further noted that the Petitioner's intended dissolution undermined its eligibility for the requested 
nonimmigrant visa as it raised serious questions about whether it continued to exist as an importing 
employer and whether it is authorized to conduct business in a regular and systematic manner. See 
section 214(c)(l) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G) and (1)(3). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and a copy of our most recent decision. As our decision is 
already a part of the record, it is not new evidence that could provide proper cause for reopening this 
matter. In its brief, the Petitioner again asserts that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the 
claimed foreign parent company, and states that contrary to its previous claims of intended dissolution, 
it continues to maintain its corporate status in the State of Texas. The Petitioner reiterates prior 
2 
arguments and refers to evidence that we reviewed in prior motions but has not provided new facts or 
evidence to support a determination that our previous decisions were in error. 
As noted above, a motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence, 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." Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred 
in dismissing the latest motion to reconsider. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that 
would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will 
not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3