货运/卡车运输企业，受益人拟任首席执行官 · L-1 跨国公司内部调动：动议驳回（2023年1月11日）

案件背景

申请人自述为卡车运输企业，代表受益人申请L-1A跨国公司经理或高管非移民工作身份，目的是让受益人继续在美临时担任首席执行官。此前曾提交“新办公室”申请并获批，有效期至2016年2月27日。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   佛蒙特服务中心主任拒绝该申请，认定申请人未证明将以经理或高管身份雇用受益人。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 上诉

   行政上诉办公室维持原审关于经理或高管身份的认定，并在重新审查中增加第二项不合格理由：申请人未证明其在2016年2月提交申请时正在“开展业务”。

   核对原文依据

   We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal of that decision on the same ground and on the additional ground that the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that it was doing business at the time it filed this petition in February 2016.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   based on our de novo review of the record on appeal, we identified a second ground of ineligibility and concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that it was "doing business," as defined at 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H), at the time it filed this petition in February 2016.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
3. 动议

   申请人先后提交七次复议动议，均被驳回；其中2021年12月16日驳回第六次动议，2022年8月4日驳回第七次动议。

   核对原文依据

   The Petitioner has since filed seven motions to reconsider, and we have dismissed each motion.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   we concluded that the Petitioner did not provide specific reasons for reconsideration of our decision dated December 16, 2021, in which we dismissed its sixth motion.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   our decision dated August 4, 2022, in which we dismissed its seventh motion to reconsider.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
4. 动议

   本次为第八次复议动议；申请人提交的书面论证意见与第七次动议的书面论证意见实质相似，大量语言逐字复制，仅一般性反对申请被拒及后续驳回，未直接回应最近一次驳回决定。

   核对原文依据

   the Petitioner submits a brief that is substantially similar to the brief provided in support of its seventh motion to reconsider, with much of the language copied verbatim from the earlier brief

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   The Petitioner does not, however, provide reasons for reconsideration or demonstrate that we misapplied the law or users policy in our dismissal of its most recent motion to reconsider.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

逐项证据分析

按争议点查看申请主张、原审意见、具体证据与 AAO 理由。点击每项标题可展开或收起。

阅读提示与适用边界

以下为基于本案的材料核对提示，不是 AAO 对其他案件的裁定。

• 阅读提示：核对本次书面论证意见与第七次动议书面论证意见的对应关系，重点看是否针对2022年8月4日决定提出具体法律或政策适用错误，而非重复实体主张。
  核对原文依据

  with much of the language copied verbatim from the earlier brief

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：区分原审和上诉阶段对经理或高管身份及“开展业务”的实体认定与本次动议的程序审查范围；本次决定未重新评价这些实体证据。
  核对原文依据

  the scope of a motion is limited by regulation to "the prior decision."

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：复议动议的审查依据限于初次决定时记录中的证据，并须说明原决定基于对法律或政策的不正确适用；仅表达不同意见不满足要求。
  核对原文依据

  establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the initial decision

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

  merely expressing disagreement with an adverse decision is not sufficient

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页