dismissed L-1A Case: Weather Instruments

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C· INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 15,2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an exporter and wholesale distributor of weather instruments, seeks to extend the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its general manager under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
IOI(a)(I5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(I5)(L). TheL-IA classification allows a corporation or other legal 
entity (including its atriliate 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, as required, that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. We 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, and denied its subsequent motion to reopen. Most recently, we 
denied the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, finding that the Petitioner did not establish that our 
prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. 
The matter is now before us on another motion to reopen. The Petitioner submits additional 
evidence and asserts that the preponderance of the evidence supports its claim that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in a managerial capacity. Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. MOT!ON REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such 
as, for instance, submission of a properly completed Form 1-29013, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with 
the correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
At issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts on motion which establish that 
the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity as defined at seCtion 10l(a)(44)(A) ofthc 
Act. 
Mauer of'C- Inc 
As noted, we have issued three decisions to date, In dismissing the appeal, we considered the 
Beneficiary's job description, the roles of his three subordinates, the nature of the company's wholesale 
export business, and the Petitioner's claim that some non-managerial functions are assigned to 
independent contractors and employees of its foreign parent company. We explained why the 
Beneficiary's job description was insuflicient to establish that his duties would be primarily managerial 
in nature. In addition, while the Petitioner employed three other workers, the record did not show that 
these employees were manageriaL supervisory, or professional stafl; or that they would relieve the 
Beneficiary from significant involvement in the day-to-day operations of the business. Finally, we 
found that the Petitioner did not provide evidence to support its claim that the Petitioner relied on the 
services of independent contractors or its foreign parent company's statT to assist with the day-to-day 
operations of the business. 
The new evidence submilled with the first motion to reopen established that the company used the 
services of an accountant and freight forwarder at the time of filing, but did not address or overcome the 
other deficiencies addressed in our appellate decision. Therefore we denied that motion, along with the 
Petitioner's subsequent motion to reconsider, which did not establish that our decision was based on an 
incorrect application oflaw or policy. 
The Petitioner's current motion to reopen, which includes a letter and 16 exhibits, closely resembles its 
first motion to reopen. Much of the evidence, including the company's 2016 tax return and IRS Form 
W-2s, state quarterly wage reports from 2016 and 2017, recent employee paystubs, and copies of 
supplier and sales invoices from 2017, cannot establish eligibility at the time the underlying petition was 
tiled in February 2015. While some of this evidence supports the Petitioner's claim that it now staff's 
subordinate positions that were vacant at that time, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing 
through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Evidence of hiring that occurred a year or more atier 
tiling does not provide proper cause to reopen the proceeding; the Petitioner does not dispute that it 
had three subordinate employees and three vacancies at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner also provides an updated employee list with job duties, organizational chart, evidence of 
educational qualifications, and employee resumes, and submits evidence of its ongoing reliance on the 
services of a freight forwarder and an accountant. Although some of this information is presented as 
"updated," and some was previously submitted, and none of this newly submitted documentation 
contains new information regarding the employees who were on staff at the time of tiling. We have 
already addressed why the evidence was insufticient to establish that the Beneficiary was supervising 
subordinate professionals, managers, or supervisors at that time. 
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, which includes the original petition. Reasserting 
previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts." 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening. 
2 
Matler ofC- Inc 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The newly submitted evidence does not overcome the grounds for denial and establish eligibility for 
benefit. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the proceeding. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Marler olC-Inc, ID# 1084045 (AAO Mar. 15, 2018) 
3