dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 0 8 2013 
IN RE: · Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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 
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: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific 
requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 
C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with 
the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days 
of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~4----f Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the preference visa petition. The petitioner 
appealed this denial to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO). On August 15, 2012, the AAO dismissed 
the appeal. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the AAO's dismissal of the 
appeal. 1 The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United States as its 
"executive and manager." The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), 
as a multinational executive or manager. 
On April 26, 2010, the director denied the petition concluding that: (1) the petitioner failed to establish that it 
would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; (2) the petitioner failed to establish that 
it has the ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage; and (3) the petitioner failed to establish that it had 
been doing business in the United States for one year when the petition was filed. On June 1, 2010, the 
petitioner appealed the denial disputing the director's findings. 
On August 15, 2012, the AAO dismissed the appeal based on a finding that the petitioner failed to establish 
that it would employ the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The AAO provided a 
thorough analysis of the job description offered by the petitioner and found that the petitioner's statements 
lacked credible and detailed information about the beneficiary's actual daily job duties. The AAO further 
found that the petitioner's finances indicated that the beneficiary does not have sufficient subordinate 
employees to perform the services of the business and relieve her from performing non-qualifying duties. 
The AAO observed that the brief description of the beneficiary's duties indicate that she would be directly 
performing the services of the business. The AAO withdrew the director's findings that the petitioner failed to 
establish its ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage and failed to establish that it had been doing 
business for one year at the time the petition was filed. 
The petitioner subsequently filed the instant motion to reopen and reconsider the AAO's decision of 
August 15, 2012. On motion, the petitioner submits a brief discussing the economic recession in the United 
States and stating that those facts were not considered in the final decision of the petition. The petitioner does not 
address the beneficiary's duties or attempt to explain the specific tasks the beneficiary performs on a daily basis. 
The petitioner also does not directly address the financial information referenced by the AAO in regards to the 
beneficiary's lack of subordinate employees to carry out the day-to-day operations of the company and relieve her 
from performing non-qualifying duties. The petitioner references and provides copies of published articles about 
downsizing and the recessed economy. The petitioner does not cite any statutes, regulations or precedent 
decisions. 
1 The petitioner marked the box at part two of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, to indicate that it 
is filing an appeal. As AAO decisions are not appealable, the appeal will be treated as a motion to reopen or 
reconsider pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
(b)(6)
Page3 
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." 
The instant motion consists of the petitioner's brief and several referenced articles . The petitioner makes no 
reference to the findings made in the AAO's decision and the specific deficiency remarked upon therein, 
provides no citations to relevant statutes, regulations or precedent decisions, and provides no new facts to 
support a motion to reopen or reconsider. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed for failing to meet the 
applicable requirements. 
The purpose of a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider is different from the purpose of an appeal. While the 
AAO conducts a comprehensive, de novo review of the entire record on appeal, a review in the case of a motion 
to reopen is strictly limited to an examination of any new facts, which must be supported by affidavits and 
documentary evidence. A motion for reconsideration must state the reasons for re-consideration and be 
supported by pertinent precedent decisions establishing that the decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or USCIS policy . The AAO's review in this matter is limited to the narrow issue of whether the 
petitioner has presented and documented new facts or documented sufficient reasons, supported by pertinent 
precedent decisions, to warrant the re-opening or reconsideration of its decision issued on August 15, 2012. In 
the current proceeding, the petitioner has not adequately addressed the grounds stated for dismissal of the 
appeal. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) requires that motions be "[a]ccompanied by a 
statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial 
proceeding." The petitioner's motion does not contain this statement. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103 .5(a)( 4) 
states that a motion which does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed. Therefore, because the 
instant motion does not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must 
also be dismissed for this reason . 
(b)(6)
Page4 
Motions for the reopening or reconsideration 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. The 
motion will be dismissed. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1361. 
The petitioner 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.