dismissed EB-1C Case: Agriculture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 15, 2025 In Re: 35404637 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a crop dusting business, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its chief 
executive officer under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U .S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a primarily 
managerial capacity. The Petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider, which the Director dismissed, 
concluding that the filing did not meet the requirements of such a motion. The matter is now before 
us on appeal under 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive 
services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer 
has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3). 
After the Director denied the petition in May 2024, the Petitioner filed a timely motion to reconsider. 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when filed, also 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). A motion that does not meet these requirements must be dismissed. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
In dismissing the motion in August 2024, the Director determined that "the motion does not satisfy 
the regulatory requirements for ... a motion to reconsider." The Director explained that the Petitioner, 
on motion, had repeated prior assertions and arguments rather than identified specific errors of law or 
policy in the denial notice. On motion, the Petitioner also referred to "policy guidance on deference 
to previous decisions," but did not cite to any source that requires deference to prior nonimmigrant 
petition approvals when adjudicating an immigrant petition. 1 
It is the Director's August 2024 motion dismissal, not the May 2024 denial notice, that is before us on 
appeal. Therefore, the Petitioner's appeal must establish error in the August 2024 motion dismissal. 
But on appeal, the Petitioner does not specifically address the dismissal of the motion to reconsider. 
Instead, the Petitioner repeats and expands upon prior arguments that the Beneficiary's position 
qualifies as a managerial capacity. In this way, the Petitioner essentially disputes the denial of the 
petition rather than the dismissal of the subsequent motion. 
The Director denied the petition on May 24, 2024. The permitted period for the Petitioner to appeal 
that decision expired on June 26, 2024. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(i), 103.8(b). The Petitioner's 
renewed arguments that the Director should have approved the petition do not establish error in the 
Director's August 2024 decision dismissing the motion. 
For the above reasons, we will dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 Though the prior approval of an L-1 A nonimmigrant petition on behalf of the beneficiary may be a relevant consideration 
in adjudicating the immigrant petition, the fact that the beneficiary was previously approved for L-1 A classification is not 
binding if the facts do not support approval of the immigrant petition. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.4(O), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Eligibility as an L-IA nonimmigrant does not automatically establish eligibility 
under the criteria for an immigrant visa classification for a multinational executive or manager. Id. While 2 USCIS Policy 
Manual A.4(B)(l) discusses deference to prior approvals with regard to extensions of nonimmigrant status, these 
provisions do not apply to immigrant petitions. Additionally, the record for the immigrant petition does not contain the 
prior nonimmigrant filings to allow comparison between the filings. 
2