dismissed EB-1C Case: Business

11 
identieing data oefetesl, to 
prevent cl~~rlgr cti"rvafl2nted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(C) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, on June 22, 
2006. The director subsequently reopened the proceeding and, on December 21,2006, affirmed the denial of 
the petition. On January 22, 2007, the petitioner appealed to Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), and, on 
August 28, 2007, the AAO dismissed the appeal. On October 4, 2007, a motion to reconsider the AAO's 
decision was filed with the Texas Service Center. The motion will be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $9 
103.5(a)(l)(i), 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), and 103.5(a)(4). 
The petitioner, a Florida corporation, endeavored to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. The director 
denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
As indicated above, the AAO dismissed the subsequently filed appeal of the director's decision on August 28, 
2007, and a motion to reconsider the AAO's decision was filed on October 4,2007. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i) states in pertinent part that: 
Any motion to reconsider an action by [Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] filed by 
an applicant or petitioner must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider. 
In this matter, the instant motion to reconsider was filed with the Texas Service Center on October 4,2007, or 
37 days after the decision of the AAO. Although the petitioner claims the AAO's decision was "mailed to 
petitioner on September 13,2007," and that it submitted a copy of the envelope establishing this mailing date, 
the record is devoid of any such evidence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). The unsupported statements of the petitioner on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are 
not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpath~a, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
As the record is devoid of evidence establishing that the petitioner timely filed the instant motion, the motion 
must be dismissed for failing to meet applicable requirements. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4). 
In addition, the motion shall be dismissed for failing to meet an applicable requirement. The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) requires that motions be "[alccompanied 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. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
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. 9 
103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must also be dismissed for this reason. 
Page 3 
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. 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 110. With the current motion, the movant has not met that burden. 
Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not be reopened or reconsidered, and the 
previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.