dismissed EB-1C Case: Childcare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 06, 2023 In Re: 28520877 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, which operates a childcare center, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational managers or executives. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that (1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; (2) the 
Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; and 
(3) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. We dismissed 
a subsequent appeal, concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary had been 
employed abroad in the claimed executive capacity prior to her entry to the United States as a 
nonimmigrant in 2014. 1 The matter is now before us on motion to reopen. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec . 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and a copy of our prior decision dated February 14, 2023. 
The Petitioner has not, however, submitted any new facts and supporting evidence that address our 
reasons for dismissing its appeal. In our prior decision, we explained why the evidence submitted in 
1 Because the Petitioner did not meet its burden with respect to this eligibility requirement, this issue was dispositive of 
the appeal. Accordingly, we declined to reach and reserved the Petitioner 's appellate arguments regarding the two 
remaining grounds for denial addressed in the Director 's decision. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 
that "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 ofL-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). 
support of the petition was insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary was, more likely than not, 
employed by the Petitioner's foreign affiliate in an executive capacity as defined at section 
10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(44)(B). Our decision highlighted deficiencies in the 
submitted position descriptions for the Beneficiary's role as the foreign entity's sole proprietor and 
owner and explained that the record lacked sufficient evidence of the foreign entity's staffing and 
structure to support a determination that the company employed the Beneficiary in the claimed 
executive capacity. The Petitioner has not submitted new facts, supported by evidence, that address 
these deficiencies. 
Instead, the Petitioner offers a brief in which it primarily addresses the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. 
employment, its claimed qualifying relationship with her foreign employer, and the Petitioner's ability 
to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage, an issue that was not addressed in the Director's decision 
denying the petition or our prior decision dismissing its appeal. With respect to the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad, the Petitioner summarizes the evidence it previously submitted in support of its 
claim that such employment was in an executive capacity. However, the record reflects that we 
considered this evidence in our prior decision. The Petitioner's statements pertaining to the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad do not constitute "new facts" and are not supported by evidence 
that could change the outcome of our decision. 
The Petitioner also requests that we "review the complete file," emphasizing that the Beneficiary was 
previously granted L-lA nonimmigrant status, a fact that we also addressed in our prior decision. 
Here, the Petitioner has not submitted new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding or 
that would establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). We have no basis to grant the Petitioner's request to re-adjudicate the petition 
anew and therefore the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2