dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 2 2 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion 
to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 
days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms 
for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not 
file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Admini rative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the preference visa petition and dismissed the 
petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal, which was 
summarily dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The matter is now before the AAO on a 
motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Texas corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United States as its 
"director/president." The petitioner states that it is a subsidiary of the beneficiary's claimed foreign employer, 
located in Pakistan. The petitioner seeks 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. 
§ 1153(b )(1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
After issuing a notice of intent to deny and reviewing the petitioner's response, the director denied the petition 
on June 25, 2011 based on the following findings: (1) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was 
actually employed by the foreign entity for one year in the three years preceding his admission to the United 
States as a nonimmigrant; (2) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (3) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would 
be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Further, the director 
determined that the petitioner submitted falsified evidence in support of the petition and therefore denied the 
petition with a finding of fraud. Specifically, the director noted that there was inconsistent information 
regarding the identity of the beneficiary's last foreign employer which led to a conclusion that the beneficiary 
was not actually employed by the petitioner's parent company. 
On July 27, 2011, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider asserting that it did not provide factually 
inconsistent evidence regarding the beneficiary's employment abroad. The petitioner's motion consisted of a 
statement at Part 3 of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion (Rev. 11/01/12). The motion was not 
accompanied by a brief or any additional evidence. 
In a decision dated June 25, 2012, the director dismissed the petitioner's motion concluding that the petitioner's 
statements in support of the motion did not meet regulatory requirements pertaining to the filing of a motion to 
reopen or reconsider at 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(2) and (3). The director noted that the petitioner did not introduce 
any new, previously unavailable evidence in support of its motion to reopen, nor did it submit the required 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. The director further observed that the petitioner did not cite to any 
precedent case law, statute or regulation in support of an assertion that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy, or establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record 
at the time of the initial decision. 
The petitioner subsequently appealed the director's decision to the AAO. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner 
asserted that the initial findings made in the director's decision dated June 25, 2011 were based on false 
allegations. The petitioner provided an explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the identity of the 
beneficiary's foreign employer. The petitioner did not specifically address the director's June 25, 2012 motion 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
decision, the decision that was being appealed. Nor did the petitioner address the two remaining grounds for 
denial of the petition. The petitioner's appeal consisted of a statement at Part 3 of the Form I-290B. 
The AAO summarily dismissed the petitioner's appeal pursuant to the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), 
concluding that the petitioner did not identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of 
the director as a basis for the appeal of the director's last decision. The AAO concluded that the director 
properly dismissed the motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO also emphasized that the petitioner's appeal 
addressed only one of the three separate and independent grounds that served as the basis for the denial of the 
underlying petition. 
The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, counsel objects to the 
dictionary definition of "new" used in the AAO's decision and asserts "nowhere in the instructions, statutes or 
regulations is there language requiring that the evidence [submitted on motion] must be something that could 
have been discovered [or] presented before." Counsel submits dictionary definitions of the words "plain" and 
"new" in support of the motion. Counsel asserts that the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the 
evidence that all requirements for this the requested immigrant visa classification have been met. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) states: 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) states: 
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 [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) states , in pertinent part: "A motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed." 
Upon review, the petitioner's current motion, which consists of counsel's statement on the Form I-290B and two 
dictionary definitions, does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. The 
AAO summarily dismissed the petitioner's appeal based on the petitioner's failure to address the director's most 
recent decision. Further, the AAO emphasized that on motion before the director and subsequently on appeal, 
the petitioner had addressed only one of the three independent grounds for denial of the petition, and thus could 
not overcome the denial of the petition. 
Contrary to counsel's assertions on appeal, the AAO did not summarily dismiss the appeal because "the evidence 
presented with the appeal [was not] considered since it does not meet the definition of 'new."' Instead , the AAO 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
cited to the plain language dictionary definition in a footnote to help illuminate what might be considered a new 
fact. 
Rather than dismissing the appeal based on the definition of "new," the AAO concluded that the petitioner's 
motion had failed on a more fundamental point as it was not supported by affidavits or evidence. The petitioner 
did not submit a brief or any additional evidence in support of the previous motion or subsequently on appeal. 
The regulations clearly require that a motion to reopen "be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence ." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not 
evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 
(1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). Counsel's reliance on dictionary definitions 
of "new" are not persuasive and do not provide a basis for the re-opening of the AAO's previous decision. 
A motion for reconsideration must state the reasons for re-consideration and be supported by statute, regulations 
or pertinent precedent decisions establishing that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
US CIS policy. 
Even if the AAO were to grant the motion to reconsider, the petitioner has again failed to adequately address the 
findings in the director's original decision. The director denied the petition for the reasons stated above. In 
denying the petition, the director found that the petitioner and the beneficiary provided contradicting statements 
about the beneficiary's actual employment abroad and failed to corroborate its statements with documentation 
such as personnel records, pay stubs, or other evidence that would verify the beneficiary's employment at the 
qualifying foreign entity. The director further observed that the job description provided for the beneficiary's 
employment abroad was vague and failed to provide any specifics to identify his actual daily duties. The 
director also found that the job description provided for the beneficiary's position in the United States was 
similarly vague and failed to establish that he would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
Counsel has repeatedly addressed only the derogatory information presented by the director relating to the 
benefici ary's actual employment abroad with a qualifying foreign entity. Counsel rebuts the information cited in 
the original denial and indicates that the record reflects that the beneficiary was employed by the qualifying 
foreign entity for one continuous year within the three years preceding his entry to the United States. While the 
petitioner and counsel provide a brief explanation for the discrepancy, such explanation consists solely of 
unsupported statements on the Forms I-290B. 
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 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm ' r 1972)). Again, the unsupported statements of 
counsel are not evidence. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. at 188-89; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
at 503. Counsel does not adequately address the two additional grounds for denial of the petition, nor does 
counsel present any additional evidence for consideration on motion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, 
that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.