dismissed EB-1C Case: Cell Phone Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 13, 2024 In Re: 33328178 
Motions on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a cell phone retailer, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a controller. The company 
requests his classification under the employment-based, first-preference (EB-1) immigrant visa 
category as a multinational executive. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(C). Multinational businesses may transfer qualified noncitizens 
in this category to permanently work in the United States in managerial or executive capacities. Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, and we dismissed the Petitioner's 
following appeal and motion to reconsider. See In Re: 30316085 (AAO Mar. 15, 2024). We affirmed 
the Director's findings of insufficient evidence that: 
• The Beneficiary would work in an executive capacity in the United States; 
• He worked abroad for at least one year during the three-year period preceding the petition's 
filing; and 
• The Petitioner and his foreign employer are affiliated companies. 
The matter returns to us on the Petitioner's combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 1 The 
company submits a revised copy of its 2021 federal income tax return and contends that the prior copy 
mistakenly omitted the Beneficiary's foreign employer as the Petitioner's primary shareholder. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon 
review, we conclude that the company's motions do not address the dismissal grounds regarding the 
Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. employment nor establish a qualifying relationship between 
the company and his foreign employer. We will therefore dismiss the motions. 
1 On the Form l-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner indicates its filing of an appeal. Petitioners cannot 
appeal our decisions. See generally AAO Practice Manual, Ch. 3.2(e), www.uscis.giv/aao-practice-manual. The 
company's written brief, however, identifies the filing as combined motions to reopen and reconsider. We will therefore 
treat the filing as combined motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state 
new facts, supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
In contrast, a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision misapplied law or policy 
based on the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). On motion, we review only 
our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that meet these requirements 
and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Nature of the Beneficiary's Foreign and Proposed U.S. Work 
The Petitioner's motions address only its claimed qualifying relationship to the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. As previously indicated, however, we did not dismiss the company's prior motion based 
only on the claimed qualifying relationship. Rather, we also dismissed the motion based on 
insufficient evidence that he would work in the United States in the claimed executive capacity and 
that he had worked abroad for at least one year during the three-year period preceding the petition's 
filing. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act (stating requirements for multinational executives and 
managers). 
A party that inadequately briefs issues "waives" them. United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 
(5th Cir. 2010); see also Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). The Petitioner 
does not brief or even mention the dismissal grounds regarding the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed 
U.S. employment. Thus, the company has not demonstrated the petition's approvability. We will 
therefore dismiss the motions. 
B. Qualifying Relationship 
The Petitioner's motions also do not demonstrate the claimed qualifying relationship between it and 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act (requiring a petitioner or its 
affiliate or subsidiary to have employed a beneficiary abroad). The revised copy of the company's 
2021 federal income tax return is internally inconsistent and unreliable. Part I of Schedule G of the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1120 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return indicates that the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer owns 51 % of the Petitioner. But the schedule's Part IT and IRS Form 
1125-E Compensation of Officers state that he and two other people own all the company's stock 
shares. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve 
inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
Also, prior versions of the Petitioner's 2021 tax return conflict. In response to the Director's request 
for additional evidence, the company submitted a copy of the return with different amounts of net 
income, net current assets, and officer compensation than listed on the copy provided with the initial 
filing. The two return versions also bear dates for different days in June 2022. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated which version it purportedly filed with the IRS. The company's 2021 tax returns are 
therefore unreliable. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 ("Doubt cast on any aspect of the 
petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition.") 
2 
Further, the Petitioner previously argued that the same two people owned both it and the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer. The company does not explain why it now contends that the foreign entity itself 
owns it. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies with 
independent, objective evidence). Also, as our prior decision found, the company has not provided 
legible transactional documentation of the foreign employer's ownership or copies of stock 
certificates, a stock ledger, or other comparable evidence of the Petitioner's ownership. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's motions do not demonstrate a qualifying relationship between it 
and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motions do not demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. We will therefore 
affirm the petition's denial and the appeal's dismissal. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3