dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATFJAN 0 8 2015 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b )(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
htt : 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petitiOn was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) and the appeal was dismissed. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a foreign corporation established in Mexico. It seeks to employ the beneficiary in its Texas­
based branch office as its CEO. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that: (1) the foreign entity 
continues to do business abroad; (2) the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer have a qualifying 
relationship; (3) the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; 
( 4) the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; 
and (5) the petitioner has the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage. The petitioner appealed the 
director's decision: We reviewed the record of proceeding and determined that it contained sufficient 
evidence to establish that a qualifying relationship exists between the beneficiary's U.S. and foreign 
employers, which, in this instance are the same entity. Accordingly, we withdrew the second ground as a 
basis for denial. However, we found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome the 
four remaining grounds cited in the director's decision and therefore dismissed the appeal in a decision dated 
July 9, 2014. 
The petitioner now files a Form I-290B, indicating that it is filing a motion to reopen. The petitioner asks that 
we consider additional evidence that is currently submitted in support of the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A. Overarching Requirement for Motions by a Petitioner 
The provision at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) includes the following statement, limiting a U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) officer's authority to reopen the proceeding or reconsider the decision to 
instances where "proper cause" has been shown for such action: 
[T]he official having jurisdiCtion may, for proper cause shown, reopen the proceeding or 
reconsider the prior decision. 
Thus, to merit reopening or reconsideration, the submission must not only meet the formal requirements for 
filing (such as, for instance, submission of a Form I-290B that is properly completed and signed, and 
accompanied by the correct fee), but the petitioner must also show proper cause for granting the motion. As 
stated in the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)( 4), "Processing motions in proceedings before the Service . .. 
[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reopen 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), "Requirements for motion to reopen," provides: "A motion 
to reopen must [(1)) state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and [(2)] be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
This provision is supplemented by the related instruction at Part 3 of the Form I-290B, which states: 1 
Motion to Reopen: The motion must state new facts and must be supported by affidavits 
and/or documentary evidence. 
Further, the new facts must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened, with all the 
attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter of Coelho, 20 
I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-40 (lOth Cir. 2013). 
II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 
In support of the motion to reopen, the petitioner submits: (1) a brief; (2) a statement, dated July 31, 2014, 
from president of the petitioning entity; and (3) additional documentary evidence 
addressing the four grounds cited in our prior decision. In the petitioner's supporting statement, Mr. 
points to prior approvals of L-1A nonimmigrant petitions that the petitioner filed on behalf of the same 
beneficiary, indicating that such approvals should serve as proof that the beneficiary's managerial or executive 
employment capacity had been previously established. We note, however, that each nonimmigrant and 
immigrant petition is a separate record of proceeding with a separate burden of proof; each petition must 
stand on its own individual merits. USCIS is not required to assume the burden of searching through 
previously provided evidence submitted in support of other petitions to determine the approvability of the 
petition in the present matter. The prior nonimmigrant approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an 
extension petition. See e.g. Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 
2004). Similarly, the approval of a nonimmigrant petition in no way guarantees that US CIS will approve an 
immigrant petition filed on behalf of the same beneficiary. US CIS denies many I-140 immigrant petitions 
after approving prior nonimmigrant I-129 L-1 petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. 
Supp. 2d at 25; IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
Furthermore, if the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported assertions 
that are contained in the current record, the approvals would constitute error on the part of the director. We 
are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely 
because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS or any agency 
must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 
(6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Mr. also addressed deficiencies we pointed to in our prior decision with regard to the beneficiary's 
employment capacity in her position abroad and with the U.S.-based branch office by providing additional 
information about the beneficiary's credentials, her level of authority, and her assigned job duties in her 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1) states in pertinent part : 
Every benefit request or other document submitted to DHS must be executed and filed in 
accordance with the form instructions, notwithstanding any provision of 8 CFR chapter 1 to 
the contrary, and such instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its 
submission. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
position abroad and in the United States. Mr. speculated as to reasons why the petitioner previously 
failed to address the issue of the beneficiary's job duties in her proposed employment with the petitioning 
branch office. 
Lastly, Mr. asked that we consider additional evidence in an effort to establish that the foreign 
branch office continues to do business and that the petitioner has the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered 
wage. The record reflects the petitioner's submission of numerous invoices, receipts and other documents that 
were not accompanied by certified English language translations and thus have no probative value based on 
our inability to determine whether, or to what extent, the foreign language documents meet the requirements 
for a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Although the petitioner also submits a number of 
documents containing English text; these documents bear dates indicating that they existed, and thus could 
have been submitted, at the time the petitioner filed the appeal. 
Therefore, upon reviewing the evidence submitted in support of the motion, we find that the petitiOner 
provided documents that do not meet the requirements of a motion. As indicated above, we are unable to 
determine the probative value of any evidence that is provided in a foreign language and unaccompanied by a 
certified English language translation. That said, even if such translations had been submitted, any document 
that existed prior to the date of the appeal or the filing of the petition cannot be deemed as having been 
previously unavailable and thus could have been submitted up until the date we dismissed the appeal. 
III. DISMISSAL OF THE MOTION TO REOPEN 
"There is a strong public interest in bringing [a case] to a close as promptly as is consistent with the interest in 
giving the [parties] a fair opportunity to develop and present their respective cases." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 
94, 107 (1988). Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as 
petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 
502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding 
bears a "heavy burden" of proof. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the petitioner 
provided evidence and information that could have been provided either in support of the petition, in response 
to the director's request for evidence, or in support of the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner does not offer any 
new facts to warrant reopening this matter for further consideration. 
As the petitioner has not met its burden, there is no basis upon which to grant the instant motion to reopee1; 
therefore, the motion must be dismissed. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petitioner should note that, unless USCIS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion to reopen does not stay the 
execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set departure date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iv). 
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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not be 
reopened, and our previous decision will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.