dismissed L-1A Case: Wholesale Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 21,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-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 section 
101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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. We dismissed the Petitioner's 
appeal of that denial on the basis that the evidence did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial capacity under the extended petition. 
In its motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the new evidence 
demonstrates that the company has hired subordinate staff and uses independent contractors to 
perform "all necessary functions in order to export and sell its products." Upon review, we will 
deny the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion 
to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In dismissing the appeal, we considered the totality of the evidence, including the Petitioner's 
descriptions of the Beneficiary's job duties, 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 concluded that 
the record did not establish that the Beneficiary would primarily perfonn managerial duties, as the job 
descriptions were vague, suggested he would perfonn both qualifying and non-qualifying duties, and did 
not clearly establish how much time he would allocate to managerial functions. In addition, while the 
Petitioner employed three other workers, the record did not show that these employees were managerial, 
Matter of C- Inc 
supervisory or professional staff: or that they would relieve the Beneficiary hom significant 
involvement in the day-to-day operations of the business. Finally, we found insufficient evidence to 
support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary relies on external contractors or on the services of 
employees who work for its Colombian parent company. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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. 
Any new facts must establish eligibility at the time the underlying petition was filed. Reasserting 
previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts." 
The Petitioner's motion includes a letter and 13 exhibits. Some of the submitted evidence, including 
employee job descriptions and the Petitioner's 2015 federal tax retum, was submitted previously and 
therefore does not provide "new facts." The Petitioner also provides an additional supporting letter and 
a sample daily job description for the Beneficiary. While technically new, the content of these 
documents is substantially the same as that found in letters and job descriptions submitted previously. 
Much of the remaining evidence, including an April 2016 organizational chart, evidence of employee 
salaries paid in 2015 and 2016, a 2016 financial statement, a lease and services agreement signed in 
2016, and purchase and sales invoices from 2016, cannot establish eligibility at the time the underlying 
petition was filed in February 2015. While some ofthis evidence supports the Petitioner's claim that it 
has filled 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 tiling and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Evidence of hiring that occurred a year after 
filing 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 oftiling. 
Finally, the Petitioner has submitted new evidence showing that it was using the services of a tax and 
accounting firm and a freight forwarder as of the date of filing. However, we cannot find that this 
evidence "shows that [the Petitioner] uses independent contractors to perform all its necessary 
functions in order to export and sell its products," as stated in the Petitioner's brief. While we noted 
in our prior decision that the Petitioner did not adequately support its claim that it uses independent 
contractors to perform ce11ain functions, the Petitioner's newly-documented engagement of an 
accountant and a freight forwarder does not address or overcome the many other deficiencies in the 
record, as discussed at length in our prior decision and summarized above. 
III. 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. 
2 
Matter ofC- Inc 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofC- Inc, ID# 263852 (AAO Mar. 21, 2017) 
3