dismissed L-1B Case: Projection Systems

MATTER OF 3-P-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office · 
DATE: AUG. 30, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which sells and installs dome projection systems, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a projection system installation manager in its new office' under the L-1B 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) § 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's 
subsequent appeal from that decision, finding that the Petitioner did not establish, as required that it 
secured sufficient physical premises for its new office operation or that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and has been employed abroad as a manager or executive, or in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 2 On motion, the 
Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that the Beneficiary performs and would continue 
to perform duties that require specialized knowledge. In response to our finding that the record 
contained inconsistent evidence regarding the new office's physical premises, the Petitioner explains 
that it decided to relocate the business from New York to California during 2016. 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
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). 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 
1 The tenn "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). 
2 Although the Petitioner's motion brief indicates that the brief is in support of a motion to reconsider, the Form 1-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, indicates that the Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider .. 
.
Matter of 3-D-P-. LLC 
was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § l 03.5(a)(3 ). 
We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the 
requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts, evidence, or arguments to 
establish that our decision to dismiss the appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw or U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy to the facts of this case. The Petitioner must 
establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time of the filing (in this case, July 2016) and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(l ). 
For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. 
While the current motion includes newly submitted evidence, the Petitioner has not explained the 
significance of the new evidence nor has it cited precedent case law or specified how we incorrectly 
applied the law and policy to the facts presented. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper 
cause for reopening or reconsideration. 
A. Previous AAO Decision 
In dismissing the appeal, we first addressed the Director's determination regarding the Beneficiary's 
specialized knowledge. We determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's 
knowledge (1) is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and (2) cannot be easily 
imparted from one person to another. Although we acknowledged that the Petitioner filed a patent 
application, we found that it did not clarify the Beneficiary's role or show that she possesses or uses 
specialized knowledge; we noted that using complex equipment does not equate to possessing 
specialized knowledge. We also observed that the Beneficiary had less than two months of 
employment with the foreign entity prior to taking the company's internal software 
installation and training courses for which the Petitioner claimed at least 
two years of employment were required. 
Next, we addressed statements offered by the Beneficiary's business associate - president 
of We found that his input primarily spoke to the quality of the 
Beneficiary's work and the advantages of using the Petitioner's proprietary software; however, we 
observed that the Beneficiary used, but ·did not develop or enhance the software, and questioned how 
using existing software involves special or advanced knowledge. We also pointed out that the 
Petitioner is not the only company that provides dome projection services and equipment and found 
that the Petitioner has not established that its internal tools and methodologies are particularly 
complex or uncommon compared to similar companies in the same industry. We concluded that the 
record lacked sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's combination of experience, work 
assignments, and knowledge of the Petitioner's methods gave her knowledge that is distinct or 
2 
.
Mauer of 3-D-P-, llC 
uncommon compared to similarly employed workers in the industry or others within the petitioning 
company or that is greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity, and understanding in 
comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. 
Lastly, we issued a finding beyond the Director's decision, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it had secured sufficient physical premises to house its new office. We pointed out that 
although the petition form indicated that the Beneficiary would work at an address in New 
York, the Petitioner provided an August 2016 lease agreement indicating that it secured a space in 
California. We noted that the Petitioner continued to reference the New York address in 
other documents and in its own website, even though it did not provide evidence to show that it has 
ever rented, owned, or otherwise controlled the commercial space at that address. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and evidence addressing the two issues highlighted in our 
prior decision regarding the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge and the Petitioner's physical 
premises as of the date this petition was filed. 
l. Specialized Knowledge 
In support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner provides a brief containing a nearly identic<1.l 
position description and an addendum containing a chart that outlines the Beneficiary ' s duties and 
points to the duties that are claimed to involve specialized knowledge. We find, however, that the 
Petitioner's unsupported assertions as to which duties involve specialized knowledge is not 
sufficient, particularly given our prior consideration of the Beneficiary's job description at the time 
of the appeal. While we acknowledge the Beneficiary's fluency in the English and Russian 
languages, the record does not show that this ability is specific to the Petitioner . Further, the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary ' s bilingual ability distinguishes her from others who 
are similarly employed within the industry. 
The Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary was directly involved in the process of establishing 
the foreign entity, which required preparing documents for the "Board of Investment" in Thailand 
and took two years of "red tape" from the time the document~tion process first started jn 2011. to 
20 I 3, when the company was ultimately established. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary 
spent two years completing the registration process required to set up the foreign entity and asserts 
that this time period counts towards the two years of employment that the Beneficiary was required 
to have prior to taking the software installation training. The Petitioner submits a 
"Board of Investment Application for Promotion" that the Beneficiary signed in June 2011. This 
document serves only as evidence of the Beneficiary's involvement in the application process, but 
does not establish that the Beneficiary gained relevant work experience during the process of 
establishing the foreign entity. The Petitioner does not provide a list of duties that the Beneficiary 
carried out between 201 I and 2013, nor does it establish how the Beneficiary could have gained 
work experience from an entity that did not come into existence until 2013 . The Petitioner must 
3 
.
Matter of 3-D-P- . LLC 
support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
Although the Petitioner also provided certificates which show that the Beneficiary attended and 
completed and trammg courses in 
January and August 2014, respectively, we previously determined that completion of these courses 
does not constitute evidence that the Beneficiary gained specialized knowledge. It is unclear who, 
other than the Beneficiary, was offered the same courses, or that a certain level of knowledge was 
required to be eligible for the training. Further, the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary completed 
the coursework "in conjunction with the other duties" leads us to question whether the coursework 
resulted in specialized knowledge . Although the Petitioner provided a schedule breakdown of the 
dates and items covered during these trainings, this added information also does not establish that the 
trainings either resulted in or were evidence of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of the foreign entity's organizational structure. 
However, the Petitioner has not explain why or how information about the company 's structure and 
the Beneficiary 's placement within the .organization is relevant to our analysis of whether and how 
· she obtained specialized knowledge. 
2. Sufficient Physical Premises 
Next, we will address evidence regarding the Petitioner's physical premises at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(vi). As discussed earlier, we noted inconsistencies in the Petitioner's claims 
concerning the addresses it referenced . as its business premi_ses. In support of this motion, the 
Petitioner explains that it initially intended to set up its business in New York, but pursuant to 
"further market research and consultant input" changed course and ultimately decided to conduct its 
business in California . The Petition·er provided share certificates, an operating agreement, and its 
articles of organization showing that it was originally registered to business in the State of New 
York, as well as a commercial lease agreement, effective September I, 2016, showing that it secured 
a space in California to house its business operation. We note, however, that these documents had 
been previously submitted and are therefore not considered new evidence . . 
Furthermore, although we find that the Petitioner has adequately established that it intends to employ 
the Beneficiary at the California address cited in the lease agreement, it has not provided evidence to 
show that it had secured a business premises, either in New York or in California, as of July 2016 
when this petition was filed. The Petitioner never submitted a lease or other evidence showing that it 
had secured premises at the work location provided on the petition. In light of the above, we find 
that the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that it had secured sufficient premises in 
the United States at the time of filing. Further, although the Petitioner has offered some new facts 
and evidence to address the issue of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge, it has not shown 
proper cause to reopen the proceeding . 
4 
Maller of 3-D-P-. LLC 
C. Motion to Reconsider 
As noted above, a motion to reconsider must be supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted 
decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statt:ment of USCIS or Department of Homeland 
Security policy. The Petitioner in this matter has not cited to USCIS law or policy in its supporting 
statement, and has not established that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at 
the time of our decision. Therefore, it has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the· reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsidering 
the prior decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of 3-D-P-, LLC, ID# 1479738 (AAO Aug. 30, 2018) 
5