dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

Identifying data deleted to . 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Inunigration Setvices 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
MAR 15 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(1)(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.F.R. § 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, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
appeal was dismissed. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reconsider. The motion will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Missouri corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. Accordingly, 
the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(I )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § IIS3(b)(I )(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition based on two independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and 
2) 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. The AAO dismissed the appeal based on 
the grounds cited in the director's decision and added two more grounds that had not been previously 
discussed. 
On motion, counsel submits a brief in which he asserts that the petition is approvable. Counsel's assertions on 
motion are not sufficient to overcome the various adverse findings that were cited in the director's denial and 
in the AAO's subsequent decision. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(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 CIS 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 instant matter, counsel does not cite any legal precedent or applicable law that would indicate an error 
on the part of the AAO in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § I03.S(a)(4), which states, in pertinent part, that a motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
Furthermore, the motion shall be dismissed for failing to meet an applicable requirement. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(I)(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." In this matter, 
the motion does not contain the statement required by 8 C.F.R. § 103 .S(a)(I )(iii)(C). The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § J03.S(a)(4) states that a motion which does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed. 
Therefore, because the instant motion did not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(I)(iii)(C), it must also be dismissed for this reason. 
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.S(a)(I)(iv). 
• 
Page 3 
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.