dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 11 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS 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 
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. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, ("the director") denied the preference visa petition. The 
petitioner subsequently filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) where the appeal was 
dismissed. The matter later came before the AAO on a motion to reopen and reconsider. Notwithstanding our 
decision to grant the petitioner's motion, we affirmed the decision dismissing the appeal. The matter is now 
before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed. 
The U.S. petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 
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. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
On August 17, 2012, the director denied the petition determining that the petitioner failed to meet statutory 
criteria, which require the petitioner to establish that: (1) the petitioner's foreign parent company employed the 
beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the petitioner will employ the beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner filed an appeal, disputing both grounds for denial. With regard to the beneficiary's employment 
abroad, we found that the petitioner submitted irrelevant documents that lacked probative value because they 
failed to address the beneficiary's actual job duties while working in Venezuela for the foreign entity. We also 
noted that the petitioner made inconsistent references to the beneficiary's position title, referring to him at 
times as general manager and at other times as president with each position having its own set of job duties and 
distinct placement within the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy. 
With regard to the beneficiary's proposed employment with the petitioning entity, we found that the petitioner 
did not provide evidence to establish that the beneficiary has a subordinate level of managerial employees to 
oversee or direct. We also observed that the job description the petitioner provided was overly vague and that 
the record lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner hired outside contractors, such as 
freight forwarders and an accountant, or that it had a storage facility for inventory. We ultimately concluded 
that, at most, the beneficiary is acting as a first-line supervisor of non-professional, non-supervisory, and non­
managerial employees. Alternatively, after considering the petitioner's reference to beneficiary as a function 
manager, we determined that the petitioner did not articulate any specific function that the beneficiary will 
manage or identify any employees who would perform the everyday routine operational tasks, including the 
duties of a first-line supervisor, such that the beneficiary would be relieved of the non-qualifying tasks and 
could focus primarily on perform managerial duties. Lastly, we rejected the petitioner's undue reliance on the 
previously approved L-1A nonimmigrant petition filed on the beneficiary's behalf, stating that in making a 
determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in that individual record of 
proceeding. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(ii). 
We subsequently granted the petitioner's motion and contemplated additional evidence that was submitted in 
support thereof. However, notwithstanding the decision to grant the petitioner's motion, we determined that 
the petitioner provided supporting evidence that lacked probative value and thus was insufficient to overcome 
the adverse findings we made in our prior decision, dated July 29, 2013. 
We found that the petitioner provided a certification letter and a corresponding translation that did not meet the 
regulatory requirements specified at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3) based on the lack of evidence identifying the 
translator or his or her competence to provide a complete and accurate translation. Next, we questioned the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
relevance of the petitioner's submission of its tax return and evidence ofthe beneficiary's employment abroad, 
given that these documents fail to establish the beneficiary's job duties with either entity, the organizational 
hierarchy of either entity, and either entity's ability to relieve the beneficiary from having to focus his time 
primarily on the performance of non-qualifying operational tasks of the foreign or U.S. employer. Finally, we 
pointed out that the petitioner submitted a freight forwarding service agreement that predated the filing of the 
instant petition and no evidence on record actually established that the agreement was still in effect at the time 
of filing. 
In support of the instant motion to reconsider, counsel contends that our findings were subjective with regard 
to the validity of the freight forwarding contract. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) states, 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 Service policy .... 
A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the original decision based on the previous factual record, as 
opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence. 
See Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399, 403 (BIA 1991). Accordingly, the new evidence the petitioner 
currently submits in support of the motion to reconsider, including the document titled, "Certificate of 
Translator," executed on August 17, 2013, and the additional shipping receipts, will not be considered, as a 
motion to reconsider is not the proper vehicle for submitted new evidence. 
In addition, counsel fails to establish that our assessment of the petitioner's freight forwarding agreement was 
arbitrary. Despite the agreement's indication that it would remain in effect indefinitely, it is reasonable to 
question whether such an agreement was in effect at the time of filing given the possibility that the agreement 
could easily have been terminated by either party. It was the petitioner's burden to establish that such 
agreement was in effect at the time of filing in light of the fact that only those facts and circumstances that are 
in effect when the petition is filed can be considered to determine eligibility. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). 
Lastly, while counsel cites several published cases, which we have reviewed in considering the petitioner's 
motion to reconsider, counsel fails to establish, nor is there any indication that would lead us to conclude, that 
any of the cited cases, none of which are in any way related to immigration law or the filing of an I-140 
petition, are relevant to the matter at hand. As such, there is no indication that the cited cases establish that our 
prior decision, dated March 4, 2014, misapplied the law or Service policy. 
To merit reconsideration of the AAO's most recent decision, the petitioner must both: (1) state the reasons why 
the petitioner believes the most recent decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; and (2) 
specifically cite laws, regulations, precedent decisions, and/or binding policies that the petitioner believes that 
the AAO misapplied in it its most recent decision. The AAO emphasizes that the requirements for a motion 
to reconsider are specific. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) requires a motion to reconsider to state the reasons for 
reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the prior decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. Such explanation and supporting evidence must be 
submitted on or with Form I-290B. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(2) and (3). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
We find that neither counsel's statement nor. the additional documents that have been submitted in support of 
this motion meet the regulatory requirements for the filing of a motion to reconsider. Therefore, the 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 and/or 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)(l)(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 dismissed.