dismissed EB-1C Case: Automotive Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF US-A-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 11, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a motor vehicle exporter, seeks to permanent employ the Beneficiary as its manager of 
international sales under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(C). 
This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the 
United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) it will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial 
capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity prior to her entry to 
the United States to work for the Petitioner as a nonimmigrant. 1 The Petitioner appealed the denial 
and we dismissed the appeal, finding that the Petitioner did not overcome these two grounds for denial. 
We further found that the Petitioner did not establish its ability to pay the Beneficiary the proffered 
wage and denied the petition for that additional reason. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we erred 
by emphasizing the U.S. company's small staff, without considering the size of the foreign parent 
company or the Beneficiary's function manager role within the international qualifying organization. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider must be supported by a pertinent 
precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services or Department of Homeland Security policy. 
1 The Director further found that the individual who signed the petition did not have authority to do so, and thus determined 
that the petition was not properly filed and did not include a bona fide job offer. We withdrew these findings on appeal. 
Matter of US-A-S-
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen the proceeding to instances 
where the petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening, a petitioner 
must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly completed Form 
I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause for granting the 
motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
11. ANALYSIS 
A Motion to Reconsider Does Not Address All Grounds for Dismissal of the Appeal 
In our dismissal notice, we agreed with the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed in the United States, in a managerial 
or executive capacity, as required by 8 C.F .R. § 204. 5G)(3). We also entered a third, separate ground 
for denial, determining that the record did not contain evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay the 
Beneficiary's proffered wage, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
In its motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not addressed our finding that it did not establish its 
ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage. When a party fails to offer an argument on an issue, 
that issue is abandoned. Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); 
Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885, at *I, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(plaintiff's claims abandoned when not raised on appeal to the AAO). The motion to reconsider will 
be denied as it does not address, and therefore does not show proper cause to reconsider, our finding 
with respect to the Petitioner's ability to pay. 
B. U.S. and Foreign Employment in a Managerial Capacity 
With respect to the Beneficiary's proposed employment in a managerial capacity, we made the 
following findings: 
• The Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's proposed job duties indicated that she would 
spend 65% of her time on sales and customer-based job duties that could not be classified as 
managerial in nature. 
• The Petitioner amended its organizational chart and the job titles of almost all of its employees 
in response to a request for evidence (RFE) and did not explain the reason for these changes. 
• The Petitioner did not provide requested information regarding the duties performed by its 
employees and contractors in support of its claim that such staff would relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing the "international sales" function that she is claimed to manage. 
• The Petitioner did not resolve the noted inconsistencies in the record with respect to the 
Beneficiary's job title and proposed placement within its hierarchy. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not address any of these findings. Therefore, the Petitioner does not 
claim or establish that our earlier decision was in error on any of the above points. In support of its 
motion to reconsider, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary manages the "international purchasing 
department" and therefore is required to work closely with its parent company in Taiwan. As such, 
2 
Matter of US-A-S-
the Petitioner asserts that, in analyzing whether the Beneficiary would be employed as a function 
manager, we should have considered "the size of the parent company" and the Beneficiary's role 
within the broader international organization. The Petitioner cites to Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016), in support of this claim. 
However, whether a beneficiary is a function manager turns in part on whether the Petitioner has 
sustained its burden of proving that his or her duties are "primarily" managerial. A petitioner's 
description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the 
function rather than perform the duties related to the function. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). Even if the foreign entity's staff will perform certain 
functions related to the international purchase or sales function, we cannot overlook the Petitioner's 
statement that the Beneficiary will spend 50% of her time "contact[ing] automobile dealerships in Asia 
for the purpose of selling pre-owned vehicles from the U.S. market." The Petitioner has not indicated 
that the Beneficiary would delegate this non-managerial responsibility to a subordinate employee in 
the United States or abroad. Accordingly, it cannot meet its burden to establish that she will primarily 
manage an essential function, even if it had provided sufficient evidence of how the foreign staff would 
support the U.S. company subsequent to her transfer. Further, as noted, the Petitioner has not 
addressed several of the specific deficiencies and inconsistencies addressed in our decisions. 
Finally, although the Petitioner's brief contains a heading that states "The Record Demonstrated that 
the Beneficiary was Employed in Primarily Managerial or Executive Capacity Abroad," the Petitioner 
has not articulated or supported a claim that our prior decision on this issue was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy or that it was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of 
the decision. The Petitioner emphasizes that the foreign entity has 35 employees and that the 
Beneficiary manages the purchasing department, but does not address the Beneficiary's job 
description, which is identical to that provided for her proposed U.S. position and indicates that she 
spends at least half of her time on non-managerial sales functions. Nor does the Petitioner address our 
finding that it did not explain how the employees in her department relieve her from having to allocate 
her time primarily to non-managerial job duties related to purchasing and sales. 
In sum, the Petitioner's assertions on motion do not establish proper cause for reconsideration of our 
determinations with respect to the Beneficiary's employment capacity in the United States and abroad. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration and has not 
overcome the grounds for dismissal of its appeal. The motion to reconsider will be denied for the 
above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In 
visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofUS-A-S-, ID# 3016601 (AAO Apr. 11, 2019) 
3