dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

I 
MATTER OF P-WT-EI- LTDA 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 27, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a Brazilian limited liability partnership engaged in information technology services with 
one employee, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as an information technology 
specialist under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-IB 
classification allows, a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a 
qualifying foreign employee with "specialized knowledge" to work temporarily in the United States. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in a position that requires 
specialized knowledge in the United States and did not identify what special or advanced knowledge 
the Beneficiary possesses. 
The matter carne before us on appeal, which we summarily dismissed. The matter is now before us 
on a motion to reopen. In its motion, the Petitioner provides an appeal brief addressing the 
Director's findings. The Petitioner also provides a policy memorandum in support of the appeal. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion to reopen. 
I. MOTJON REQUIREMENTS 
A. Overarching Requirement for Motions by a Petitioner 
The provision at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) includes the following statement limiting a USCIS 
officer's authority to reopen the proceeding or reconsider the decision to instances where "proper 
cause" has been shown for such action: "[T]he official having jurisdiction may, for proper cause 
shown, reopen the proceeding or reconsider th~prior decision." 
~ 
Thus, to merit reopening or reconsideration, the submission must not only meet the formal 
requirements for filing (such as, for instance, submission of a Form I-290B that is properly 
completed and signed, and accompanied by the correct fee), but the Petitioner must also show proper 
cause for granting the motion. As stated in the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), "Processing 
Matter of P-WT-EI- LTDA 
motions in proceedings before the Service," "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements 
shall be dismissed." 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reopen 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2), "Requirements for motion to reopen," states: "A motion to 
reopen must [(1)] state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and [(2)] be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence." 
This provision is supplemented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which states: 
"Motion to Reopen: The motion must state new facts and must be supported by affidavits and/or 
documentary evidence that establish eligibility at the time the underlying petition or application was 
filed." 1 
Further, 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.3d 1230, 1239-40 
(lOth Cir. 2013). 
II. MOTION TO REOPEN 
The primary concern in this proceeding is to determine whether the Petitioner's submissions are 
sufficient to establish that our prior decision to summarily dismiss the appeal was erroneous such 
that would warrant reopening this matter in order to consider the merits of the Director's decision. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the 
party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal. 
The submissions constituting the Petitioner's motion to reopen consist of the following: (1) the 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion; (2) a brief addressing the basis for the Director's denial; 
(3) a copy of our May 9, 2016 decision summarily dismissing the Petitioner's appeal; (4) a copy of a 
policy memorandum; and (5) the Director's decision denying the petition. 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) states in pertinent part: 
Every benefit request or other document submitted to DHS must be executed and filed in accordance 
with the form instructions, notwithstanding any provision of 8 CFR chapter 1 to the contrary, such 
instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission. 
2 
Matter of P-WT-EI- LTDA 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any matter on motion is narrowly limited to the 
basis for the prior adverse decision. In this matter, the subject matter of our prior decision, dated 
May 9, 2016, was limited to the merits of the Petitioner's appeal, which we summarily dismissed 
based on the finding that the Petitioner did not provide a statement addressing or disputing the 
grounds for denial pursuant to the instructions at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which expressly state 
that the Petitioner must provide a statement specifying the basis for the appeal on a separate sheet of 
(paper and specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed. 
Further, despite the fact that the Petitioner indicated on the Form I-290B that a brief and/or 
additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days of the appeal, the record before us contained 
no brief or supporting evidence at the time we adjudicated the appeal on May 9, 2016, nor does the 
Petitioner's statement on motion indicate that such a brief was submitted. Rather, it appears that the 
Petitioner seeks full review of the Director's decision, regardless of the fact that it did not address 
our decision to summarily dismiss the appeal or establish that our decision was erroneous. 
Therefore, despite the Petitioner's submission of evidence addressing the merits of the Director's 
denial, the scope of this discussion is limited to consideration of any new facts or adequately 
documented reasons establishing that our prior decision to summarily d~smiss the Petitioner's appeal 
was incorrect and that a withdrawal of our prior decision is warranted. Given that the Petitioner's 
brief does not dispute the basis for our summary dismissal of the appeal or provide evidence to 
establish that an appellate brief was submitted in support of the appeal at the time of filing or 30 
days after such time, we cannot consider the Petitioner's current brief, which seeJ<_s a merits decision 
based on a review of the record that is beyond the permitted scope of this discussion. 
Accordingly, this motion will be dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), which states, 
in pertinent part, that a motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
IlL CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of P-WT-EI- LTDA, ID# 46842 (AAO Oct. 27, 2016) 
3