remanded L-1B Case: Hydraulics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-H- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 30, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a developer and manufacturer of hydraulic products, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its "Senior Sales Manager" under the L-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary: (1) possesses specialized knowledge; (2) has been 
employed abroad as a manager or executive, or in a specialized knowledge capacity; and (3) will be 
employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. The Petitioner subsequently filed 
a combined motion to reopen and reconsider accompanied by a brief and additional supporting 
evidence about the Petitioner's products. The Director denied the motion concluding that the 
Petitioner did not state a clear reason for reconsideration nor stated new facts to warrant reopening. 
The Director noted that the new facts must have been previously unavailable and could not have been 
discovered earlier in the proceedings. Section 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(l). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director overlooked previously submitted evidence and 
asserts that the brief submitted in support of its previously filed motion pointed to specific errors in 
the Director's application of law and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) policies. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Director correctly dismissed the motion to reopen despite 
having incorrectly cited to a regulatory provision that pertains to motions filed with the Board of 
Immigration Appeals. Although the Director correctly denied the motion to reopen, we find that the 
Director did not properly assess the previously submitted evidence and therefore incorrectly denied 
the motion to reconsider. Therefore, we will remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with 
our discussion below. 
Matter of S-H- Inc. 
I. MOTION TO REOPEN AND RECONSIDER 
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 
was based on an incorrect application oflaw 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. § 103.5(a)(3). We may 
grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested 
immigration benefit. 
The issue before us is whether the Director's decision denying the Petitioner's combined motion to 
reopen and reconsider was correct. Upon review of the record, we find that the Petitioner did not point 
to new facts in support of a motion to reopen; therefore, the Director was correct in denying the 
Petitioner's motion to reopen. However, we find that the Director did not adequately consider the 
brief submitted in support of the motion to reconsider where the Petitioner correctly pointed to the 
Director's incorrect application of the provisions ofUSCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB 
Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015) to the presented set of facts. 
In light of the arguments made in the Petitioner's support brief, we find that the Petitioner adequately 
articulated reasons for reconsideration, thereby warranting that the motion to reconsider be granted so 
that a decision can be made based on the merits of the submitted evidence. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner adequately articulated reasons for reconsideration, thereby warranting that the motion 
to reconsider be granted; therefore, we will remand the matter for entry of a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision, 
which, if adverse, shall be certified to the AAO for review. 
Cite asMatter ofS-H-Inc., ID# 3158190 (AAO Apr. 30, 2019) 
2