服装鞋类进出口公司首席执行官 · L-1 跨国公司内部调动：动议驳回（2023年11月16日）

案件背景

申请人是一家服装和鞋类进出口公司，为受益人提交L-1A跨国公司高管或经理工作签证申请，希望将其调任美国公司首席执行官。原审主任认为记录未能证明受益人将以经理或高管身份受雇，因而拒绝申请；随后上诉被驳回。本次程序为申请人对该上诉驳回决定提出的复议动议。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   加州服务中心主任拒绝L-1A申请，认定记录未证明受益人将以《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(44)(A)和(44)(B)条所定义的经理或高管身份受雇。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   the Director denied the petition based on a determination that the Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity as defined at sections 101(a)(44)(A) and 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 上诉

   申请人对原审拒绝决定提出上诉；AAO驳回上诉，指出受益人职责描述过于笼统，不足以证明申请提交时其将担任高管职位，且申请人陈述相互矛盾、文件不足，未能证明美国机构在申请提交时已发展到足以支持该高管职位。因申请人上诉时未主张受益人将以经理身份受雇，AAO仅分析高管身份。

   核对原文依据

   we dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal ofthat decision

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   the Petitioner's generic duty description for the Beneficiary did not sufficiently substantiate that he would have been employed in an executive-level capacity as of the date the petition was filed

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   Because the Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity on appeaL we restricted our analysis to whether the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive caparty.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
3. 复议动议

   申请人提出复议动议，主张AAO和原审主任错误地未将美国机构按新办公室标准评估，称其美国机构“本不应按持续运营的活跃办公室标准评估”；AAO认定申请人未直接回应先前决定中的具体缺陷，也未说明先前决定在法律或政策适用上存在错误。

   核对原文依据

   Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

   the Petitioner contends that both the Director's denial and our appellate decision were incorrect because its U.S. organization "should never have been evaluated under the standards of an on-going active office."

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   the Petitioner does not directly address the conclusions we reached in our prior decision

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
4. 复议动议决定

   AAO驳回复议动议。

   核对原文依据

   ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.

   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I-129 L分类补充表第1部分第12题的勾选及附注，确认申请提交时是否主张新办公室；该勾选是AAO拒绝按新办公室法规评估的直接依据。
  核对原文依据

  the Petitioner checked the box "No" when asked if the Beneficiary was coming to the United States to open a "new office"

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：复议动议的审查范围限于最新决定，并须依据决定时记录中的证据指出法律或政策适用错误；本案动议未针对先前决定的具体结论提出理由，故被驳回。
  核对原文依据

  Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision.

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

  The Petitioner does not, however, provide reasons for reconsideration or demonstrate that we misapplied the law or USCIS policy in our dismissal ofits appeal.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：先前上诉已认定受益人职责描述笼统、申请人陈述矛盾且文件不足；本次复议未重新实质审理高管身份，不能将本次驳回理解为对L-1A资格的全面重新认定。
  核对原文依据

  the Petitioner's generic duty description for the Beneficiary did not sufficiently substantiate that he would have been employed in an executive-level capacity as of the date the petition was filed

  查看英文原件 · 第 1 页

  the Petitioner does not directly address the conclusions we reached in our prior decision

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页