remanded L-1A Case: Automotive

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-G- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 16, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an exporter and wholesaler of automobiles and automobile parts, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 revoked the approval of the petition, determining that the 
Petitioner did not establish, as required, that it employs the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The Petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider accompanied 
by a brief and additional supporting evidence. The Director denied both the motion the reopen and 
the motion to reconsider, concluding that the Petitioner did not state new facts to warrant reopening 
nor cite to any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the revocation decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not adequately articulate or substantiate why 
the submitted evidence was insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof. 
Upon de novo review, although the Director correctly denied the motion to reconsider, we find that the 
Director applied an incmrect standard to the Petitioner's motion to reopen and therefore erroneously 
denied the motion without considering the new facts and evidence submitted. Accordingly, we will 
remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with our discussion below. 
I. ANALYSIS 
Although the Petitioner's appellate brief primarily addresses the Director's initial denial decision, we 
emphasize that the Petitioner did not appeal the denial order itself, but rather the Director's subsequent 
finding that its combined motion did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or motion to 
reconsider. Therefore, the merits of the denial decision, and of the underlying petition, are not before 
us. The only issue before us is whether the Director properly found that the combined motion did not 
Matter ofA-G-Inc. 
meet applicable requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. A motion that does not 
meet applicable requirements must be denied. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). The Director denied the motion to reopen despite the Petitioner's submission of new 
evidence, finding that "this evidence does not meet the criteria for a motion to reopen as there appears 
to be no discovery of new evidence or changed circumstances." The Director cited to a precedent 
decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals (the Board), Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 
(BIA 1992), in support of this conclusion. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a "new" fact, nor does it 
mirror the Board's definition of"new" at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(l) (stating that a motion to reopen will 
not be granted unless the evidence "was not available and could not have been discovered or presented 
at the former hearing"). Unlike the Board regulation, the USCIS regulation does not require the 
evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or undiscoverable. Instead, 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. 
Here, the Petitioner's motion to reopen included relevant new facts and an affidavit that had not 
previously submitted in the proceeding. The Director did not consider these new facts before rendering 
a decision due to her reliance on the Board's definition of "new." Accordingly, we will withdraw the 
Director's denial of the motion to reopen and remand the matter for entry of a new decision. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration; 
(2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Upon review of the motion, we find that the Petitioner did not articulate a claim that the revocation 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Therefore, the Director correctly 
denied the motion to reconsider. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion to reopen met the requirements specified at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). As the 
Director erroneously denied the motion to reopen, we will remand the matter for entry of a new 
decision. 
2 
Matter ofA-G-Inc. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of A-G- Inc., ID# 3300081 (AAO May 16, 2019) 
3