dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Administration

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal pnvaA.':) 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
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 
Date: MAR 14 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)( I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U,S,c' § 1153(b)( I )(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, The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c'F,R, § 103,5, All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630, Please be aware that 8 c'PR § 103,5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, 
Thank you, 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), where the appeal was dismissed. 
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen, which was granted, but the AAO ultimately affirmed the 
prior adverse decision. The AAO similarly upheld all prior adverse findings in response to the petitioner'S 
second motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reconsider. This 
third motion will also be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a California corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its controller and vice 
president of administration. 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. § 1 1 53(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition 
based on the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner appealed the denial disputing the director's findings and claiming that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial and an executive capacity. In a decision dated December 21, 2005, the AAO 
dismissed the appeal affirming the director's conclusion. The AAO found that the beneficiary would be 
performing the petitioner's non-qualifying administrative and operational tasks and that he would not be 
supervising managerial, professional or supervisory employees who would relieve him from having to 
primarily perform non-qualifying tasks. In addition to the director's findings, the AAO further concluded that 
the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The AAO provided detailed discussions of the job descriptions previously given by the petitioner, 
explaining in detail the basis for its adverse findings. 
On first motion, counsel argued that dismissing the appeal amounted to an abuse of discretion, claiming that 
the AAO failed to consider the beneficiary'S contribution to the success of the U.S. entity. Counsel offered an 
additional job description for the beneficiary. The AAO found that counsel's submissions were insufficient to 
overcome the prior decision and ultimately affirmed the decision dismissing the appeal. In support of its 
conclusions, the AAO provided a comprehensive analysis of the petitioner's submissions and concluded that 
the petitioner failed to meet the regulatory, statutory, and case law provisions that called for a statement of the 
beneficiary'S actual job duties. The AAO further noted that the petitioner did not dispute I) that at the time of 
filing it did not employ a support staff to relieve the beneficiary from having to perform lower-level tasks 
associated with payments, collections, refunds, or handling refund requests and legal issues; 2) that the 
beneficiary would not supervise a staff of managerial, supervisory, or professional employees; and 3) that the 
beneficiary was not employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On second motion, counsel asserted that the beneficiary is employed in an executive capacity. In support of 
her assertion, counsel offered an affidavit written by the petitioner's office manager and evidence of the 
educational levels of the beneficiary's claimed subordinates. However, the AAO properly found that these 
additional documents did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. The AAO duly pointed out that the 
petitioner had been advised on numerous occasions, both by the director and by the AAO, of the various 
deficiencies that lead to the adverse findings and further noted that the petitioner had ample opportunity to 
supplement the record with the necessary information either on appeal or in response to the request for evidence. 
The AAO concluded that counsel's submissions did not warrant another full discussion of an issue that had 
already been considered in full. 
Page 3 
Additionally, in response to counsel's contention that a prior list of five goals and policies had been ignored, 
the AAO found that the petitioner had been accorded the benefit of a full and comprehensive review of all the 
facts and issues that were deemed to be the most relevant in determining the petitioner's eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought The AAO rejected counsel's underlying argument that every piece of information 
offered by the petitioner must be specifically enumerated and discussed. The AAO was clear in stating that 
the AAO will limit its discussion to those items and facts it deems to be the most relevant in addressing the 
grounds for ineligibility. Lastly, the AAO found that counsel failed to address the requirements for a motion 
to reconsider, despite the fact that a combined motion to reopen and reconsider had been filed. 
In the present matter, the petitioner has filed a motion to reconsider. On behalf of the petitioner, counsel 
persists in her argument that the petitioner submitted evidence that was not fully considered and asserts that 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) failed to comply with Chapter 22 of the Adjudicator's 
Field Manual (AFM). 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(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. 
In the present matter, despite the AAO's prior decision in which the proper requirements for a motion to 
reopen were addressed, counsel fails to cite any legal precedent or applicable law that would indicate an error 
on the part of the AAO in dismissing the petitioner's appeal and subsequent motions. The AAO notes that the 
AFM is neither a legal precedent nor an applicable law. Specifically, the AFM provides internal directives 
and does not have the force of law. See Romeiro de Silva v. Smith, 773 F.2d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir.1985); see 
a/so, Prokopenko v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 941, 944 (8th Cir. 2004). Moreover, counsel provided no sound legal 
argument specifYing exactly which evidence the AAO failed to consider and precisely how this alleged 
oversight is inconsistent with the instructions provided in Chapter 22 of the AFM. Therefore, once again, the 
petitioner's 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. 
As a final note, the proper filing of a motion to reopen andlor 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. 
§ 103.5(a)(I)(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 dism issed.