remanded L-1B Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24227594 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 14, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-1B Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner, a construction services provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
asphalt paver operator under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S .C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L) . The L-lB 
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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a position that is managerial, executive, or 
involved specialized knowledge, and that he would be employed in the United States in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. The Director dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent combined motion to reopen 
and motion to reconsider, determining that it did not meet the requirements of a motion at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2) or (3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision dated June 2, 2022, and remand the matter for entry of a new 
decision on the Petitioner's combined motions, consistent with the following analysis . 
Our review on appeal is generally limited to the basis for the immediate prior decision . Although the 
Petitioner's appellate brief primarily addresses the Director's initial denial decision dated March 25, 
2021, the merits of that decision, and of the underlying petition, are not before us. Rather, the only 
issue before us on appeal is whether the Director properly concluded that the Petitioner's motion filing 
did not meet applicable requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) . A motion to 
reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or U.S . Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on 
the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A 
motion that does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) . 
In dismissing the motions, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner filed a combined motion and 
cited the regulatory requirements applicable to both motions to reopen and motions to reconsider. The 
Director also observed that the Petitioner submitted a brief addressing the reasons it believed the 
petition was erroneously denied, as well as new evidence in support of its claim that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad, and would be employed in the United States, in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge. However, the Director did not address the legal arguments the Petitioner made in its brief 
or discuss the merits of the new evidence provided on motion. Rather, the Director summarily 
concluded that "[t]he evidence submitted with the motion to reopen and reconsider does not establish 
that the requirements for filing a motion to reopen have been met." 
The Director's decision did not sufficiently address the newly submitted facts or evidence or explain 
why the requirements for a motion to reopen were not met. The Petitioner's new evidence on motion 
included detailed explanations of the nature of the hydraulic asphalt engineering services the Petitioner 
provides, the specialized training and projects the Beneficiary completed, and other information 
intended to clarify why the offered position involves specialized knowledge not commonly found in 
the construction industry at large. The new evidence was relevant and directly addressed concerns 
raised in the Director's denial decision. Because the Director did not address the merits of the new 
evidence, we conclude that the Director did not properly adjudicate the motion to reopen. 
With respect to the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner's brief stated several reasons for 
reconsideration, noting that the Director mischaracterized the nature and complexity of the services to 
be provided, overlooked a 70-page document that explains the hydraulic engineering process that 
forms the basis of the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge, and failed to apply USCIS policy guidance 
applicable to the adjudication of L-1B nonimmigrant petitions. The decision does not address these 
arguments. As noted, the Director's decision, despite acknowledging that the Petitioner filed 
combined motions to reopen and reconsider, simply states that the Petitioner did not establish "that 
the requirements of a motion to reopen have been met." The Director did not appear to reach any 
conclusion with respect to the motion to reconsider. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denial in order to allow the petitioner a fair opportunity 
to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must 
fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to 
challenge the determination on appeal). Here, because the Director has not yet addressed the merits 
of the Petitioner's motion to reopen or motion to reconsider, the record of proceeding is not ripe for 
us to consider the Petitioner's arguments. We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter to the Director. On remand, the Director is instructed to address the merits of the 
Petitioner's claims, legal arguments, and the new facts and evidence submitted on motion, and to issue 
a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2