remanded L-1A Case: Import/Export And It Services

MATTER OF T-T- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 26, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-1.29, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an import/export company that also provides infonnation technology services, seeks to 
continue the Beneficiary's.temporary employment as its chief executive officer and president under the 
L-IA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees.' Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section lOl(a)(lS)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l lOl(a)(lS)(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 California Service Center approved the petition, but later revoked the approval, 
concluding that the record did not establish, as required, that the Petitioner will employ the 
Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. Citing discrepancies in the 
record and infonnation obtained during an on-site inspection, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner is not conducting the full range of business activities which had fonned the basis of the 
petition. The Petitioner filed a joint motion to reopen and reconsider, which the Director denied. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner resubmits exhibits and arguments 
submitted previously, and asserts that the Director erred by not granting the joint motion. 
' We will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for the entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis. 
The Petitioner did not appeal the revocation order itself. Rather; the Petitioner appealed· the 
Director's subsequent finding that the motion did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen, a 
motion to reconsider, or both. Therefore, the merits of the revocation order, and of the underlying 
petition, are not currently before us. The only issue before us is whether the o·irector properly found 
that the motion did not meet applicable requirements. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
February 11, 2015, until February 10, 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(1)( 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 of T-T- Inc. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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 of Immigration Appeals' (the Board) definition of "new" at 
8 C.F .R. § 1003.2( c )(1) (stating that a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the evidence "~as 
not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing"). Unlike the 
Board regulation, we do 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. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously 
provided evidence does not constitute "new facts." 
In denying the motion to reopen, the Director briefly described the evidence submitted on motion, 
and noted that most of this evidence was already in the record. While some of the evidence was 
newly submitted, the Director concluded that this evidence amounted to "supplemental information" 
rather than "new facts." 
The newly submitted evidence, however, directly addressed findings in the revocation notice. The 
Director previously found that the Petitioner had not submitted evidence that it had "been actively 
importing, marketing, and selling ... tea pots," and that the Petitioner had "been actively providing 
computer integration and software development services." The evidence newly submitted on motion 
includes invoices showing that the Petitioner imported and sold tea pots in 2015, and provided 
"network service" or "network setup service" to five clients between July 2015 and July 2016. 
These invoices do not simply restate previous assertions. Rather, they seek to address and rebut 
specific findings in the revocation notice. The Director must address this evidence and determine 
whether it shows, as the Petitioner claims, that the tea pot trade and computer services are each "still 
a very active line of business for the company." 
Because the Director has not yet addressed the merits of the motion to reopen, the proceeding is not 
ripe for us to consider the merits of the evidence submitted on motion or with the underlying 
petition. We have overruled the Director's finding that the evidence is not "new," but the Director 
must make the determination as to wheth~r the newly submitted evidence overcomes the grounds for 
revocation. 
Because we find that the Petitioner filed a proper motion to reopen, we need not address here the 
separate motion to reconsider, which concerns the question of whether the underlying decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of that decision. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
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 ofT-T- Inc., ID# 1496207 (AAO July 26, 2018) 
2