dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE : AUG 2 8 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizen ship and Immigrati on Services 
Administrativ e Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachus etts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § J l53(b)(l )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF- REPRESENTED 
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 http://www.uscis.gov/forms 
for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R . § 1 03.5. Do not 
file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank you, 
;:~ 
/-Ron Rosenberg 
Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the preference visa petition. The petitioner 
appealed the denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), and, on October 28, 20 I I, the AAO 
dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the AAO's decision, and, on December 24, 
2012, the AAO dismissed the motion. The matter is now before the AAO on a second motion to reopen and 
motion to reconsider, in accordance 
with 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. The motions will be dismissed . 
The petitioner is a Washington corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United States as its 
"executive director." The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)( l)(C) , 
as a multinational executive or manager. 
On May 18, 2009, the director denied the petition finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad and that he would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity . The director also determined that the evidence of record suggests the petitioner and the 
beneficiary do not have an employer-employee relationship. In denying the petition, the director found that 
the petitioner failed to comply with the portion of the RFE that instructed the petitioner to establish that the 
beneficiary qualifies as either a manager or executive. The director further found that the petitioner failed to 
provide documentation pertaining to the foreign and U.S. entities' staffing and organizational hierarchies as 
well as the beneficiary's job duties with each entity. 
The petitioner filed an appeal and, on October 28, 2011, the AAO dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 
director's decision to deny the petition , concluding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to 
establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad and his proposed employment in the U.S. can be deemed 
as qualifying employment within a managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the AAO's decision, and, on December 24, 2012, the AAO 
dismissed the motion concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the AAO' s decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence of record at the time of the decision. 
The petitioner subsequently filed the instant motion to reopen and motion to reconsider the AAO's decision of 
December 24, 2012. On motion, counsel for the petitioner submits a brief which solely addresses the 
beneficiary's duties at the foreign entity and his proposed duties at the U.S. company . The petitioner does not 
address the AAO's decision of December 24, 2012, the decision it is requesting be reopened and reconsidered. 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the petitioner's assertions do not meet the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3) states, in pettinent part: 
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 Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was inconect based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 
In other words, the purpose of a motion to reconsider is to contest the correctness of the original decision 
based on the previously established factual record. A motion to reconsider based on a legal argument that 
could have been raised earlier in the proceedings will be denied. See Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 
219-20 (BIA 1990, 1991). The "reasons for reconsideration" that may be raised in a motion to reconsider 
should flow from new law or a de novo legal determination reached by the AAO in its decision that could not 
have been addressed by the party. Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). Further, a motion to 
reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and 
seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision. Id. Instead, the moving party must 
specify the factual and legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in the initial 
decision or must show how a change in law materially affects the prior decision. !d. at 60. 
The instant motion consists solely of the petitioner's brief, which does not address the findings made in the 
AAO's decision and the specific deficiencies remarked upon therein. The brief states no new facts provided 
to suppott a motion to reopen, and states no reasons for reconsideration. 
The purpose of a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider is different from the purpose of an appeal. While 
the AAO conducts a comprehensive, de novo review of the entire record on appeal, a review in the case of a 
motion to reconsider must state the reasons for re-consideration and be supported by pertinent precedent 
decisions establishing that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. As 
such, the petitioner's previously submitted arguments based on the Service Center director's original decision 
cannot be considered to provide a reason for reconsideration of the AAO's appellate decision. The AAO 
previously conducted a de novo review of the entire record of proceeding and has already addressed the 
arguments contained in the petitioner's brief. There is no regulatory or statutory provision that allows a 
petitioner more than one appellate decision per petition filed. In the present matter, an appellate decision was 
issued and the deficiencies were expressly stated. 
Rather, the AAO's review in this matter is limited to the narrow issue of whether the petitioner has presented 
and documented sufficient reasons, supported by pertinent precedent decisions, to warrant the reconsideration 
of the AAO's decision issued on December 24, 2012. In the current proceeding, the petitioner has not 
adequately addressed the grounds stated for dismissal of the previous motion or the appeal. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) requires that motions be "[a]ccompanied by a 
statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any 
judicial proceeding." The petitioner's motion does not contain this statement. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4) states 
that a motion which does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed. Therefore, 
because the instant motion does not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must also be dismissed for this reason. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECIS!O i 
Page 4 
Motions for the reopening or reconsideration 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 . See 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 ." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at llO. With the cun·ent motion, the movant has not met that 
burden. The motion will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.