dismissed EB-1C Case: Childcare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19356357 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 28, 2022 
Form I-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, operating as a childcare center, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l )(C). This 
classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the 
United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: 1) it had a qualifyingrelationship with the Beneficiary's former foreign 
employer; 2) the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to her 
entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant; 3) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial 
or executive capacity in the United States; and 4) it had the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered 
wage . We concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a managerial or executive capacity and dismissed the appeal. We explained that because the 
identified basis of ineligibility was dispositive of the appeal, we would not address the three remaining 
grounds in the Director's decision. The matter then came before us on a motion to reconsider, which 
we also dismissed. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to 
reopen. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(l )(i) limits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' authority 
to reconsider or reopen a matter to instances where an applicant has shown "proper cause" for that 
action . 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a 
motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration 
benefit. Thus, to merit reopening, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such 
as submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct 
fee), but also show proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet 
the applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the 
prior adverse decision. In this case, our prior adverse decision was the dismissal of the Petitioner's 
motion to reconsider. More specifically, we concluded that the Petitioner did not cite any precedent 
decisions or USCIS policy to support its argument that "[ss ]ize is not a relevant consideration" and that 
only the Beneficiary's job duties must be considered in assessing the managerial or executive capacity 
of the Beneficiary's foreign employment. We also pointed out that focusing exclusively on the 
Beneficiary's job duties would have been no less detrimental to the outcome in this matter, given that 
we found the Beneficiary's job description to have been deficient. Lastly, we pointed to precedent 
case law that supports our decision to dismiss the appeal based on only one of the grounds cited in the 
Director's decision - the Beneficiary's employment abroad- rather than addressing all four grounds. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of 
L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Accordingly, in order to determine whether this matter merits reopening, we will consider any new 
facts and supporting evidence that address our decision to dismiss the prior motion to reconsider. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision was incorrect and asse1is that 
"the petition warranted approval." The Petitioner goes on to recite the statutory and regulatory criteria 
for multinational managers and executives and lists previously submitted evidence in to support of its 
claim that "the examining officer erred as a matter of fact and law" in denying the petition. In sum, 
the Petitioner reasserts previously stated facts and refers to previously submitted evidence, none of 
which constitutes as "new facts." 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening and has not 
overcome the basis for dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2