remanded L-1A Case: Automobile Transport

MATTER OF E-A-I-G- LLC 
f 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 25, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an automobile transport company, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's employment as its 
CEO under the L-1A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) § IQ1(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A 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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, originally denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity under the extended petition. 
We summarily dismissed the Petitionkr's subsequent appeal because the record at the time of 
adjudication did not show that the Petitioner had submitted a brief or otherwise identified an 
erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact in the Director's decision. The matter is now before 
us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. On motion, the Petitioner provides 
evidence that it submitted a timely brief in support of its appeal. 
Upon de novo review, we will reopen the matter for the purpose of considering the appellate brief 
and the merits of the appeal. We will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to the 
Director for entry of a new decision. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A. Overarching Requirement for Motions by a Petitioner 
The regulations state that "the official having jurisdiction may, for proper cause shown, reopen the 
proceeding." 8 C.F .R. § 103 .5( a)(l )(i). This provision limits our authority to reopen the proceeding 
to instances where "proper cause" has been shown for such action. Thus, to merit reopening, the 
submission must not only meet the formal requirements for filing, but the petitioner must also show · 
proper cause for granting the motion. 
Matter of E-A-1-G- LLC 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Also, the new facts 
must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened, with all the attendant delays, 
the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N 
Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.Jd 1230, 1239-40 (lOth Cir. 2013). 
C. Requirements for Motions to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when filed, 
also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial 
decision. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the prior 
decision based on the previous factual record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new 
hearing based on new facts. Compare 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(2). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The Petitioner submitted no brief or evidence with Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, but 
stated that it would submit those materials within 30 days. When we reviewed the record of 
proceeding several months later, it did not include any supplement to the appeal. As a result, we 
summarily dismissed the appeal, because the appeal, as presented to us, did not identify any 
erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact in the Director's denial ofthe petition. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a copy of an appellate brief with supporting exhibits. The 
Petitioner also provides a proof-of-delivery receipt from Federal Express as evidence that it timely 
submitted these materials to supplement the appeal but, for reasons the record does not explain, they 
did not reach the record of proceeding. 
We will deny the motion to reconsider, because the Petitioner has not shown that the summary 
dismissal was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. The 
evidence of record, at that time, did not include any supplement to the appeal. Given the state of the 
record at the time, summary dismissal was consistent with users regulations and policy. 
We will grant the motion to reopen in part, because the recovered supplement to the appeal 
comprises new facts that were not available to us at the time of our prior decision, and the 
Petitioner's timely submission of substantive appellate materials entitles the Petitioner to a decision 
on the merits. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-A-1-G- LLC 
After reviewing the entire record of proceeding, including the Petitioner's submissions on motion, 
we conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence to overcome the basis for the Director's 
decision. Specifically, the Petitioner has now established by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the Beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying executive capacity under the extended petition. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the Petitioner has sustained that burden 
with respect to this issue. The Director's decision is withdrawn. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT FOR ONE CONTINUOUS YEAR 
Although the Director's decision is withdrawn, we find insufficient evidence in the record to 
establish that the Beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a 
qualifying organization within the three years preceding the initial L-1 A petition filed on his behalf 
in January 2015. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(A) states, in pertinent part: 
Intracompany transferee means an alien who, within three years preceding the 
time of his or her application for admission into the United States, has been 
employed abroad continuously for one year by a firm or corporation or other legal 
entity or parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof, and who seeks to enter the 
United States temporarily in order to render his or 
her services to a branch of the 
same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in a capacity that is 
managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
On the L Classification Supplement to Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was employed by its parent company, 
from February 26, 2008, until January 31, 2015. 
In its letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary served as the Chairman of the Board 
at the foreign entity since 2008. The Petitioner explained that the foreign entity was founded after 
demand for physiotherapy grew from the Beneficiary's management of which 
he ran with his four brothers who were physicians in Libya. The Petitioner also mentioned that the 
Beneficiary is currently the head of the in the and a 
member of the Board of the m Germany. 
The Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's resume: dated November 2014, which lists his 
prof~ssional experience as follows: 
Current Jobs 
• Chairman of Board Libya) 
• Chairman of Libya) 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-A-1-G-LLC 
• 
• Member of Board 
Other Activities 
• Member of Board 
Egypt) 
• Member of Executive Office; 
contracts (Jordan, ) 
• Member of Board; 
Germany) 
Libya) 
Libya) 
Further, in reviewing this motion, we reviewed USCIS and U.S. Department of State records, which 
indicated that the Beneficiary applied for Bl/B2 visas abroad in 2011, 2013 and 2014. On his 
nonimmigrant visa applicatio_ns (Forms DS-160), submitted to the U.S. Department of State, the 
Beneficiary described his employment status as follows: 
• On November 20, 2011, the Beneficiary listed his current employer as and 
his occupation as "engineering." Where asked to briefly describe his duties, the Beneficiary 
stated "duly chairman of who is responsible for the overall welfare of the 
administration department, attends' conference/meetings and promote quality service to all 
the clients." Where asked if he had been previously employed, the Beneficiary solely listed 
his previous employer as and his occupation as "engineering 
consultant" from January 1, 2006 to 2011. 
• On December 5, 2013, the Beneficiary listeq his current employer as and his 
occupation as "engineering." Where asked to b~iefly describe his duties, the Beneficiary 
stated "I'm the chairman of and 
I'm also member in ' 
• DS-160 filed on August 15,2014, the Beneficiary listed his current employer as 
and his occupation as "engineering." Where asked to briefly describe his duties, the 
Beneficiary stated "I'm chairman of and ' 
Upon review, the Beneficiary's apparent concurrent employment with multiple companies and 
organizations undermines the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary was a full-time employee of its 
Libyan parent company for at least one continuous year between January 2012 and January 2015. 
The Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Based on the evidence discussed above, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary had at least one 
continuous~ year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three 
years preceding the initial L-1A petition filed on his behalf in January 2015. For this reason, the 
petition cannot be approved. 
4 
Matter of E-A-1-G- LLC 
However, as the Petitioner did not have notice of these deficiencies, we will remand the matter to the 
Director. The Director is instructed to request any additional evidence deemed warranted to 
determine whether the Beneficiary meets the foreign employment requirement and must allow the 
Petitioner to submit such evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Director's decision is withdrawn and the matter is remanded to the Director for the above stated 
reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted, and the decision of the Director, 
Vermont Service Center, is withdrawn. The matter is remanded to the 
Director, Vermont Service Center, for further proceedings consistent 
with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ofE-A-1-G- LLC, ID# 47577 (AAO Oct. 25, 2016) 
5