dismissed L-1A Case: Trucking And Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-T-T-V-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 25, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a trucking company that also owns a truck yard and real estate properties, seeks to 
continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as chief executive officer under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 1 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the extended petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that decision, with 
an additional finding that the Petitioner had not shown that it is doing business. The matter is now 
before us on a motion to reconsider. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that it had previously submitted evidence of the Beneficiary's 
managerial actions, and that the Beneficiary has provided "much needed stability and growth to [the 
Petitioner] and its affiliated entities." 
We will deny the motion. 
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. A motion to reconsider must be supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted 
decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
or Department of Homeland Security policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). As such, our decision here is 
not a new adjudication of the underlying petition, based on review of the complete record. Rather, our 
review is limited to specific errors that the Petitioner identifies on motion. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
February 28, 2015, until February 27, 2016. 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(l)(l)(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 ofT-T-T-V-, LLC 
On motion, the Petitioner does not assert any incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner 
cites a regulation and an adopted decision, but only as background, with no discussion as to how our 
appellate decision did not follow the law or policy described in the cited materials. Instead, the 
Petitioner asserts errors of fact, which we will address below. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement of 
the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). The petitioner must show that it will employ the beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 
As noted above, we found that the Petitioner had not established that it was doing business at the time 
it filed the extension petition, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). The 
Petitioner's motion does not address or dispute this finding. This omission is, by itself, grounds to 
deny the motion. In the interest of thoroughness, however, we will discuss the Petitioner's assertions 
on motion. 
The Petitioner had asserted that the Beneficiary is a function manager, whose managerial capacity 
derives not from supervising or controlling a subordinate staff, but instead from primarily managing 
an "essential function" within the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. To establish 
that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, a petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that: 
(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is "essential," i.e., core to 
the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the 
function; ( 4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion 
over the function's day-to-day operations. 
Matter ofG-Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). In our September 2018 dismissal 
notice, we found that the Petitioner had not met the first three of these requirements. 
On motion, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "[m]anages [a] vital function for the 
organization," and "has succeeded in providing much needed stability and growth to [the Petitioner] 
and its affiliated entities." The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary negotiated with a bank to save a 
company-owned property from foreclosure. The Petitioner also states that "two trucks were stolen 
[from an affiliate because] the company did not have adequate managerial personnel," after which the 
Beneficiary "immediately began making changes" and "recovered two trailers that [were] stolen along 
with the trucks." The Petitioner does not identify the changes or explain how the Beneficiary 
recovered the stolen trailers. 
2 
Matter ofT-T-T-V-, LLC 
These anecdotal discussions of one-time actions do not identify an ongoing, essential function of the 
organization, or establish that the Beneficiary primarily managed, rather than performed, that function. 
We note that a motion to reconsider must establish that the contested decision was incorrect based on 
the record at the time of that decision. The purpose of a motion to reconsider is not to introduce new 
facts into the record. 
In our appellate decision, we stated: "the Petitioner had acquired controlling interests in [various] 
entities through nominal payments of $10 to the Beneficiary, who was shown to have been the 
controlling owner of each entity for several years prior to 2015." On motion, the Petitioner states that 
it purchased the companies from a similarly-named third party, not the Beneficiary. The identity of 
the seller, however, was presented as background information and did not determine the outcome of 
the appeal. Therefore, any error in this regard was not material to the appeal's dismissal. 
In our appellate decision, we observed that the Beneficiary was the Petitioner's only employee at the 
time the Petitioner filed the petition, and therefore the Petitioner had not shown who performs many 
of the non-managerial tasks necessary to operate the company and its affiliated entities. On motion, 
the Petitioner asserts that, for financial reasons, support staff are contractors rather than employees. 
The Petitioner notes that it had previously listed two contractors, who handle accounting and payroll. 
Our decision, however, had noted many other "non-qualifying operational aspects of these businesses, 
such as collecting rent, maintaining properties, or advertising them for rent." An organizational chart, 
resubmitted on appeal but already in the record, names various contractors relating to the Petitioner's 
property management business, but we previously noted that the Petitioner had "paid only nominal 
amounts to these contractors," and had not shown "that they were engaged sufficiently to primarily 
relieve him from performing non-qualifying operational level duties." In sum, we found "no evidence 
to indicate that the Beneficiary was primarily delegating non-qualifying operational level tasks." The 
Petitioner, on motion, does not fully address or resolve this issue or show that our decision was in 
error. 
The Petitioner submits another copy of its previously submitted business plan, citing it as evidence of 
the company's activity and the Beneficiary's authority over it. The business plan, however, contains 
several assertions that the record does not support, and therefore it is not a particularly reliable source 
of information about the company. For example, the plan indicated that the Petitioner "is a full service 
tank truck company capable of providing our customers unsurpassed local, intrastate and interstate 
shipments at competitive prices. We have all of the facilities, resources, and personnel necessary to 
service your tank truck needs safely and efficiently." The business plan contained these assertions in 
the present tense, essentially claiming that these elements are already in place, rather than goals that 
the company hopes to achieve in the future. The Petitioner's organizational chart and list of 
contractors do not identify the personnel claimed in the business plan. 
The business plan also states: "almost all of our revenue is generated by a small group of shippers 
with whom we have formed partnerships." The Petitioner's financial data, however, indicated that the 
Petitioner's principal source of business income is through rental of real estate properties. In short, 
the business plan contains a number of claims, stated as facts, which conflict with other information 
that the Petitioner has provided. As such, the business plan does not appear to be a reliable depiction 
3 
Matter ofT-T-T-V-, LLC 
of the petitioning entity, and the Petitioner has not shown that a more detailed examination of the 
business plan would have led to approval of the petition. 
The Petitioner has not shown that our September 2018 decision was incorrect due to errors of fact or 
law. Therefore, we cannot grant the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of T-T-T-V-, LLC, ID# 3017998 (AAO Apr. 25, 2019) 
4