remanded L-1A Case: Plastics Packaging Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFF-USA, LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT . 29, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a plastics packaging manufacturer, importer , and wholesaler , seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as general manager of its new office I under the L-lA nonimrnigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 11 0l(a)(15)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
position within one year of the petition's approval. On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the ground for 
denial, claiming that the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity within one 
year of the petition's approval. 
The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider the Director's decision . The Director 
denied the combined motion based on these findings : ( 1) the motion did not meet the requirements of a 
motion to reopen because it did not include new facts that established the Beneficiary 's eligibility; and 
(2) the motion did not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider because the Petitioner did not state 
a clear reason for reconsideration, nor did it provide any precedent decision to establish that the 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision on motion misapplied applicable law and 
regulations, and that its motion was supported by additional evidence regarding the Beneficiary's 
duties. It also asserts that the Director's decision denying the underlying petition was erroneous . The 
denial of the underlying petition, however, is not properly before us on appeal. The Petitioner did not 
appeal the initial denial before the 33-day deadline set by regulation (8 C.F.R . §§ 103.3(a)(2)(i) and 
103.8(b)). The Petitioner's appeal of the motion denial is timely, but that motion denial did not reset 
the clock to appeal the underlying decision . 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position . 
Matter of F-USA, LLC 
As a result, the matter before us on appeal is a decision on the Petitioner's combined motion, rather 
than the merits of the underlying petition. The only issue before us is whether the Director properly 
found that the motion did not meet applicable requirements. We will withdraw the Director's decision 
and remand the matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). In the first denial notice, the Director stated that it appeared that the Beneficiary will 
"primarily assist with the day-to-day non-supervisory duties" of the Petitioner and that the Beneficiary 
would not supervise professional employees. On motion, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the 
Petitioner containing an expanded description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties in the United 
States. The Petitioner indicated that the letter was intended to "clarify the proposed duties and 
responsibilities of the Beneficiary." 
In denying the motion, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not allege new facts on motion. 
However, the letter from the Petitioner constitutes "new facts" relating to the issue of whether the new 
office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial position within one year of the petition's 
approval. Therefore, the Director should have reviewed the motion to reopen on its merits. We will 
withdraw this portion of the Director's decision and remand the matter to the Director to review the 
merits of the Petitioner's motion to reopen. 
B. Motion 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 
USCIS policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider must also establish that the decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Id. As detailed in the 
Director's decision denying the motion, the Petitioner failed to satisfy these requirements. Therefore, 
the Director properly denied the motion to reconsider. 
In sum, the Director did not address the merits of the motion to reopen despite the new facts presented 
on motion. We are remanding the matter so the Director may make the initial determination as to 
whether the new evidence overcomes the grounds for denial. 
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 F-USA, LLC, ID# 6407463 (AAO Oct. 29, 2019) 
2