dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

---------------- . 
MATTER OF B-1- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 8, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FORALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a management, consulting, investment company that operates a motel, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its vice president under the first preference immigrant 
classification for multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to 
permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or 
managerial capacity. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad and would be employed in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and denied its combined motion to reopen and reconsider as 
untimely filed. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a second and third combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider, which we also denied. The matter is now before us on a fourth combined motion to 
reopen and reconsider. 
On this fourth motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and a brief. The Petitioner asserts 
that we should review the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider, and that the cumulative 
evidence in the record supports a finding that the Beneficiary has been and would be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A. Overarching Requirement for Motions by a Petitioner 
The provision at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) includes the following statement limiting a U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer's authority to reopen the proceeding or 
reconsider the decision to instances where "proper cause" has been shown for such action: 
Matter of B-1- Corp. 
[T]he official having jurisdiction may, for proper cause shown, reopen the proceeding 
or reconsider the prior decision. 
Thus, to merit reopening or reconsideration, the submission must not only meet the formal 
requirements for filing (such as, for instance, submission of a Form 1-290, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, that is properly completed and signed, and accompanied by the correct fee), but the 
petitioner must also show proper cause for granting the motion. As stated in the provision at 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), "Processing motions in proceedings before the Service," "[a] motion that does 
not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reopen 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), "Requirements for motion to reopen," states: 
A motion to reopen must [(1)] state the new facts to be provided in the reopened 
proceeding and [(2)] be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
This provision is supplemented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which states: 
Motion to Reopen: The motion must state new facts and must be supported by 
affidavits and/or documentary evidence demonstrating eligibility at the time the 
underlying petition ... was filed. 1 
Further, the new facts must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened, with 
all the attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter 
ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-
40 (lOth Cir. 2013). 
C. Requirements for Motions to Reconsider 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), "Requirements for motion to reconsider," states: 
A motion to reconsider must [(1)] state the reasons for reconsideration and [(2)] 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 [(3)], [(a)] when filed, also [(b)] establish 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(a)(l) states in pertinent part: "Every benefit request or other document submitted to 
DHS must be executed and filed in accordance with the form instructions, notwithstanding any provision of 8 CFR 
chapter 1 to the contrary, and such instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission.". 
2 
Matter of B-1- Corp. 
These provisions are augmented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which states: 
Motion to Reconsider: The motion must be supported by citations to appropriate 
statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions and must establish that the decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence of record at the time of decision. 
A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the prior decision based on the previous factual 
record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new facts. Compare 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
A motion to reconsider should not be used to raise a legal argument that could have been raised 
earlier in the proceedings. See Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 219 (BIA 1990, 1991) 
("Arguments for consideration on appeal should all be submitted at one time, rather than in 
piecemeal fashion."). Rather, any "arguments" that are raised in a motion to reconsider should flow 
from new law or a de novo legal determination that could not have been addressed by the affected 
party. Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (examining motions to reconsider under a 
similar scheme provided at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)); see also Martinez-Lopez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 169, 
171-72 (1st Cir. 2013). Further, the reiteration ofprevious arguments or general allegations of error 
in the prior decision will not suffice. Instead, the affected party must state the specific factual and 
legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in the initial decision. See 
Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 60. 
II. DISCUSSION 
For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. 
The Director's initial decision to deny the petition, and our subsequent dismissal of the Petitioner's 
appeal, was based upon a finding that evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity as defined at section 10l(a)(44) ofthe Act. The subject of the motion currently 
before us is our decision dated December 16, 2015, in which we denied the Petitioner's third motion 
to reopen and reconsider. 
In support of this fourth motion, the Petitioner submits: (1) a lengthy brief, which does not 
specifically address the merits of our decision dated December 16, 2015; (2) an undated notarized 
letter from its president, who describes the Beneficiary's job duties; (3) an undated notarized letter 
from the Beneficiary with information regarding his job duties in the United States and abroad; (4) a 
notarized letter from a representative of the Beneficiary's former foreign employer addressing his 
duties with that company; (5) an accountant-prepared statement of financial condition for the 
Beneficiary and his spouse as of September 30, 2015; and (6) copies of the Petitioner's IRS Form 
W-3, Wage and Tax Statement, for the years 2014 and 2015. 
3 
Matter of B-1- Corp. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
Upon review of the documents submitted in support of the motion to reopen, we find that the 
Petitioner has not provided new evidence. In its brief, the Petitioner alleges no new facts. The 
substance of the Petitioner's argument is that the Director's decision of denial and our dismissal of 
the subsequent appeal were in error. 
Some of the documents submitted in support of this motion to reopen contain information that was 
previously available while other documents, such as evidence of wages paid to employees in 2015, 
significantly post-date the filing of the petition and therefore are not relevant to this proceeding. A 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date 
after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). The Petitioner also submits letters that reiterate the duties the 
Beneficiary performed abroad and in the United States. The information in these documents was 
previously available. Further, the Petitioner has not established that the evidence submitted on this 
motion would change the outcome of this case if the proceeding were reopened. 
"There is a strong public interest in bringing [a case] to a close as promptly as is consistent with the 
interest in giving the [parties] a fair opportunity to develop and present their respective cases." INS 
v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107 (1988). 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. 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" of proof. INS v. 
Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
Because the Petitioner has provided no new facts or new evidence, let alone facts or evidence likely 
to change the result of that decision, the motion to reopen will be denied. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by citations to 
pertinent statutes, regulations, and/or 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) (detailing the 
requirements for a motion to reconsider). 
Here, the Petitioner makes broad assertions regarding abuses of discretion and improper assessments 
of the evidence without articulating how such standards were misapplied to the Petitioner's 
evidence, or how we misapplied law or policy in our decision denying the Petitioner's third motion 
to reopen and reconsider. Further, we note that the Petitioner has made the same claims in prior 
motions and we addressed these claims in prior decisions. The Petitioner appears to be requesting 
reconsideration of every decision made by the Director and by us to date. The purpose of a motion 
4 
Matter of B-1- Corp. 
is different from the purpose of an appeal. While we conduct a comprehensive, de novo review of 
the entire record on appeal, a review in the case of a motion to reconsider is strictly limited to an 
examination of any purported misapplication of law or USCIS policy, which must be supported by 
precedent case law. We previously conducted a de novo review of the entire record of proceedings 
when we reopened the matter to consider the Petitioner's appellate brief. There is no regulatory or 
statutory provision that allows a Petitioner more than .one appellate decision per every petition filed. 
In the present matter, an appellate decision was issued and the deficiencies were expressly stated .. 
The Petitioner persists in filing motions reiterating arguments that have been addressed and found to 
be insufficient in prior decisions. As such, the Petitioner's most recent assertion that it submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish eligibility for the benefit does not meet the requirements of a motion 
to reconsider. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the documents constituting this motion to reconsider do 
not· articulate how our decisions or the Director's decision misapplied any pertinent statutes, 
regulations, or precedent decisions to the evidence of record at the time those decisions were 
rendered, such that the proceedings would warrant reconsideration. Accordingly, the motion to 
reconsider will be denied. 
. III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
. FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied . 
Cite as Matter of B-1- Corp., ID# 17210 (AAO July 8, 20 16) 
5