dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

(b)(6)
U.S . .Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Servic es 
Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Mass
achusetts Ave. N.W. , MS 
2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JUN 1 3 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
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 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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our 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 request can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with 
the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days 
of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen . 
Thank you, 
• 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrat ive Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal was dismissed. The matter is now 
before the AAO on a second appeal, which the AAO will reject. 
The petitioner is a California corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United States as its 
president/chief executive officer . 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 . 
The record shows that the director denied the petition on February 8, 2012 finding that the petitioner is 
statutorily ineligible based on its failure to establish that (1) the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity or (2) the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently ftled an appeal attempting to overcome the director's adverse decision . After 
reviewing the petitioner's submissions on appeal, the AAO determined that the petitioner provided sufficient 
evidence to overcome the director's adverse finding with regard to the beneficiary's proposed employment in 
the United States. However, the AAO did not issue a similar finding with regard to the beneficiary's 
employment abroad. Specifically, the AAO noted that the petitioner failed to address the issue of the 
beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity and therefore effectively conceded that issue. The AAO 
issued a decision dated March 4, 2013 dismissing the appeal based on the determination that the petitioner failed 
to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner now submits a second appeal in support of which counsel provides a statement dated April 25, 
2013 . Counsel asks the AAO to review the additionally submitted documents and to "reverse the second ground 
for denial." 
In light of the fact that the petitioner has filed an appeal of an appeal, the AAO is barred from issuing a decision, 
as there is no statutory or regulatory provision that permits the petitioner to file more than one appeal with 
regard to the same petition . See 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(ii) . Although 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a) permits the petitioner 
to file a motion to reopen or reconsider the AAO's decision on appeal, the Form I-290B in the present matter 
clearly indicates that the petitioner intended to file an appeal rather than a motion , apparently seeking to appeal 
the AAO's prior decision in this proceeding . As there is no law or regulation permitting the filing of multiple 
appeals of the same petition the petitioner's current appeal must be rejected. 
The AAO further notes that even if the petitioner had properly filed a motion to reopen and/or reconsider the 
AAO's March 4, 2013 decision, the motion would have been dismissed. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 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 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.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall 
be dismissed. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(4). 
(b)(6)
• 
Page 3 
Here, the petitioner has not provided new, i.e., previously unavailable evidence or information, to support a 
motion to reopen; nor has the petitioner cited to pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the AAO's prior 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. Therefore, even the petitioner had 
properly filed a motion to reopen and/or reconsider, the motion would have been dismissed based on the 
petitioner's failure to meet the regulatory motion requirements. 
In light of the petitioner's filing of a second appeal in reference to the same adverse decision, the second appeal 
will be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.