dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

DATE: OCT a 2 2012 
INRE: 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 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1 )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § l153(b )(1 )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days ofthe decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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). The appeal was dismissed. The 
matter is now before the AAO on motion to reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Texas corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. Accordingly, the 
petitioner endeavors 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. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. The director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish: I) that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity, 2) that a qualifying relationship exists 
between the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer, or 3) that the petitioner has the ability to pay 
the beneficiary's proffered wage. 
The petitioner appealed the denial disputing the director's [mdings. The AAO dismissed the appeal based on 
the determination that the petitioner failed to overcome the first two grounds of the denial. The AAO 
determined that the petitioner provided prima facie evidence of the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered 
wage as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Accordingly, the AAO withdrew the third ground as a basis for 
denial and limited its decision to the first two grounds cited above. 
On motion, the petitioner asks the AAO to reconsider its previously issued adverse findings. With regard to 
the beneficiary's employment capacity in his proposed position with the U.S. entity, the petitioner seeks to 
provide further information in response to the AAO's specific points and findings. With regard to the 
petitioner's qualifying relationship with a foreign entity, the petitioner cites case law in an effort to establish 
legal error on the part of the AAO. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) state, in pertinent 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 USCIS 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. 
Turning to the issue of the beneficiary's employment capacity in his proposed position with the petitioning 
entity, the AAO finds that the petitioner does not cite any legal precedent or applicable law that would 
indicate an error on the part of the AAO in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner cannot expect to 
succeed in meeting the regulatory requirements for a motion to reconsider simply by explaining or clarifying 
points that were previously made or by addressing deficiencies that were previously cited in the AAO's 
decision. As the above regulatory provisions indicate, the purpose of a motion to reconsider is to correct legal 
or factual error(s) that may have been made in the prior decision. 
The petitioner did not cite any pertinent precedent decisions concerning the AAO's conclusion with regard to 
the beneficiary's employment capacity in the proposed position; nor did the petitioner establish that the 
AAO's decision was incorrect based on the evidence on record at the time of the decision. Regardless of the 
Page 3 
merits of the petitioner's motion to reconsider with regard to the second basis for the AAO's decision, i.e., the 
petitioner's qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's employer abroad, the motion will be dismissed in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), which states, in pertinent part, that a motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. Therefore, the AAO need not address the second ground that 
served as a basis for the dismissal of the appeal. 
Furthermore, the motion shall be dismissed for failing to meet an applicable requirement. 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." In this matter, 
the motion does not contain the statement required by 8 C.F.R. § I03.5(a)(1)(iii)(C). 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 did not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C), it must also be dismissed for this reason. 
As a final note, the filing of a motion to reopen and/or reconsider does not stay the AAO's prior decision to 
dismiss an appeal or extend a beneficiary's previously set departure date. 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(1)(iv). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.