dismissed EB-1C Case: Carpet Services

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly uw-ted 
inmion of person4 poivay 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
3, 
d (&$ 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JUL 0 9 Zoob 
EAC 04 267 52398 
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: 
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. 
Ro ert P. ~iemann;$hief 
d 
(1 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center. The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). 
 The matter was initially 
remanded back to the director. After the director issued a new decision denying the petition, the appeal was 
dismissed and a motion to reconsider was subsequently filed. The AAO granted the motion, but affirmed its 
prior decision. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a New York corporation engaged in repairing, remodeling, mending, and cleaning carpets. It 
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)(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 concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed by 
the United States entity in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner appealed the second denial, disputing the director's findings. The AAO dismissed the appeal, 
affirming the director's decision. 
On motion to reconsider, the petitioner challenged the AAO's review of the record of proceeding, asserting 
that the AAO's interpretation of the beneficiary's job duties was erroneous. After thoroughly reexamining the 
relevant information as it pertains to the beneficiary's job duties, the AAO concluded that its prior findings 
were accurate and affirmed its decision dismissing the appeal. The AAO quoted various portions of counsel's 
supporting brief and addressed each key point, explaining how the petitioner failed to overcome the AAO's 
prior adverse findings regarding the beneficiary's eligibility as function manager. The AAO focused on the 
deficient job descriptions provided by the petitioner, citing precedent case law that requires the petitioner to 
delineate the beneficiary's specific daily job duties. 
In light of the AAO's findings, the petitioner has now filed a motion to reopen, supported by a brief in which 
counsel supplements the job description previously provided by the petitioner. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) state, in pertinent part, that 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. 
Based on the plain meaning of "new," a new fact is found to be evidence that was not available and could not 
have been discovered or presented in the previous proceeding.' The additional information provided by counsel 
in her brief does not fit ths definition. In fact, the petitioner had been advised on numerous occasions, both by 
the director and by the AAO, that a detailed job description is a key element in establishing the petitioner's 
eligbility to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager or executive. Thus; the petitioner had ample 
opportunity to supplement the record with the necessary information either on appeal or even earlier, in response 
to the director's request for evidence. Counsel cannot present the supplemental information as a "new" fact that 
was previously unavailable in hopes of meeting the criteria for a motion to reopen. 
I 
 The word "new" is defined as "1. having existed or been made for only a short time . . . 3. Just discovered, 
found, or learned <new evidence> . . . ." 
 WEBSTER'S I1 NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 792 
(1 984)(emphasis in orignal). 
Therefore, the AAO will dismiss the petitioner's motion to reopen in accordance with 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(4), 
which states that, in pertinent part, that a motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be 
dismissed. 
As a final note, the proper filing of a motion 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(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. tj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.