dismissed EB-1C Case: Business Management

· . 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COP)' 
DATE: SEP 2 8 2012 
IN RE: 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 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
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. § 1153(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 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.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.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, 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal was dismissed. The 
matter is now before the AAO on motion to reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is an Oregon entity 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)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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 the United States in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner failed to overcome the director's adverse findings on appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal, 
pointing out that the beneficiary performed abroad, and would continue to perform in his proposed U.S. 
position, non-qualifYing job duties for which no time allocations were provided. 
On motion, counsel asks the AAO to reconsider the prior decision and to take into account the petitioner's 
new business venture and the volume of business the petitioner conducted in 2007 and 2008. 
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 oflaw 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. 
On motion, the petitioner does not cite any legal precedent or applicable law that would indicate an error on 
the part of the AAO in dismissing the appeal. 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. 
It is noted that the 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)(I)(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.