dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 3 0 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServiCI 
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. 
Thank you, 
~' ' 
j(RonR~ 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider, which the director dismissed. The matter 
came before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal, which was dismissed. The matter is 
now before the AAO on a second appeal, which will be rejected. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president and CEO. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors 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. 
The record shows that the director originally denied the petitioner's Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, in a decision dated June 18, 2009. On August 3, 2009, the petitioner filed a motion to 
reopen and reconsider, which the director dismissed in a decision dated November 23, 2009. 
The 
petitioner subsequently appealed the matter by filing a Form I-290B with the AAO on December 22, 
2009. The appeal was dismissed on March 9, 2012. The petitioner has since filed a second appeal 
addressing the AAO' s prior decision. The AAO cannot, however, render a decision in this matter, as 
there is no statutory or regulatory provision that permits the petitioner to file more than one appeal with 
regard to the same petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(ii). Although 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a) permits the 
petitioner to file a motion to reopen or reconsider the AAO's decision on appeal, the Form I-290B in the 
present matter clearly indicates that the petitioner intended to file an appeal rather than a motion, 
apparently seeking to appeal the AAO's March 9, 2012 decision dismissing the appeal. 
The AAO further notes that the petitioner's appeal does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen 
or reconsider. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 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 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . A motion that 
does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
In the present matter, the Form I-290B contains a brief statement comprised of the following three 
sentences disputing the AAO's prior decision: 1) the AAO failed to consider "the overwhelming 
evidence" of the petitioner's qualifying relationship; 2) the petitioner's former accountant provided 
erroneous information in a prior tax return; and 3) "All other evidence from company archives are 
forwarded by separate cover." Counsel indicated that he would forward a brief and/or additional evidence 
to the AAO within 30 days. Although the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii) states that a petitioner 
may be permitted additional time to submit a brief or additional evidence to the AAO in connection with 
an appeal, no such provision applies to a motion to reopen or reconsider. The additional evidence must 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
comprise the motion. See 8 C.F.R §§ 103.5(a)(2) and (3). Counsel's brief and unsupported claims on the 
Form I-290B do not satisfy the regulatory criteria for a motion to reopen and/or reconsider. 
Further, as discussed, the petitioner did not properly file a motion with the AAO. Instead, the petitioner 
erroneously filed a second appeal of a matter that had already been considered on a prior appeal. As there 
is no law or regulation permitting the filing of multiple appeals of the same petition, the petitioner's 
current appeal must be rejected . 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.