dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal pri~lncl 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's appeal and subsequent motion to reconsider. 
The matter is currently before the AAO on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner filed this immigrant petition seeking 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)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition in a decision dated October 4, 2006, finding that the petitioner failed to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary has been and would be employed in the United States in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. The director made note of the petitioner's failure to provide certain 
evidence that was previously requested. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal challenging the director's review of the petition. Counsel asserted 
that the list of job duties previously provided by the petitioner was sufficient to establish that the beneficiary 
has been and would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal in a decision dated August 28, 2007, concluding that the petitioner 
failed to overcome the director's findings. The AAO commented on the petitioner's failure to provide a 
detailed job description and addressed counsel's argument that the director failed to apply the "preponderance 
of the evidence" standard. The AAO also took considerable care in addressing the issue of the beneficiary's 
eligibility to port to new employment under AC21. The AAO concluded that the petitioner failed to establish 
that the beneficiary's new position is "in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which 
the petition was filed," as required by Section 106(c) of AC21. 
After the petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, the AAO issued a decision dated December 17, 
2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider as specified at 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, the AAO dismissed the motion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4), 
which states, in pertinent part, that a motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
The petitioner now files an appeal from the AAO's prior dismissal of the motion to re~onsider.~ The 
petitioner's appeal must be rejected. The AAO does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over AAO decisions. 
The AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters described at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (as in effect 
1 On December 26, 2001, the petitioner filed its first Form 1-140 immigrant petition. On July 30, 2002, the petition was 
denied. As noted in the AAO's prior decision, despite certification under the penalty of perjury, the petitioner indicated 
in Part 4 of the most recently filed Form 1-140 that it had not previously filed an immigrant visa petition on behalf of the 
same beneficiary. 
Although the AAO acknowledges that the petitioner's brief submitted in support of the most recently filed Form I-290B 
indicates that the filing represents a motion to reopen and reconsider, the Form I-290B itself is clearly marked as an 
appeal of the prior decision. 
on February 28, 2003). See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1; 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(iv). Accordingly, the 
appeal is not properly before the AAO. 
Therefore, as the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(I). 
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.