dismissed EB-1C Case: Cleaning And Sanitation Products

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6371200 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV. 13, 2019 
PETITION: Form I-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a developer of cleaning , sanitation , and maintenance products, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its "Area Manager" under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(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 is ineligible 
because it did not establish, as required, that it had been doing business for one year prior to filing this 
petition , that it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer, and that the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer continues to do business . The Petitioner filed a combined motion to 
reopen and reconsider ,.1 which was initially rejected for lack of proper signature by the preparer of the 
form. After curing the signature deficiency, the Petitioner resubmitted the motion, which the Director 
ultimately dismissed on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed 30-day time period .2 
because 45 days had passed between the date of the decision and the receipt of the properly filed 
motion to reopen and reconsider..3 The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon de nova review, we 
will dismiss the appeal. 
The decision before us on appeal is the decision on the Petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider, 
rather than the merits of the underlying petition . As such, the only issue before us is whether the 
Director properly found that the motion was untimely. The Petitioner maintains the burden of 
establishing eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
On appeal, the Petitioner addresses the underlying grounds for denial and asserts that the delay in 
filing the motion was not the Petitioner's fault, noting that the denial was actually received ten days 
1 A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(2). A motion 
to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
2 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). 
3 The regulations actually allowed 33 days for the filing since the Petitioner was served the denial decision by mail. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.8(b). 
later than the date stamp on that decision, thus "significantly limit[ing] the timeframe" for submitting 
supporting evidence. According to the Petitioner, its late filing should be excused because the 
rejection notice from USCIS was received too late for a timely motion to be filed and the Petitioner 
contends that it made a "good faith effort to correct its own error in a timely manner." 
In the decision denying the motion, the Director acknowledged that discretionary authority under 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l) allows USCIS to excuse an untimely filed motion to reopen if a petitioner 
demonstrates that the delay was reasonable and beyond its control. The Director pointed out, however, 
that there is no comparable provision for a motion to reconsider. Further, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the delay in filing a timely motion to reopen was reasonable 
and beyond the Petitioner's control. The Director expressly stated that the combined motion was being 
dismissed on these grounds. 
Accordingly, although the Director provided an abbreviated discussion addressing some of the merits 
of the original denial of the petition, it was the untimely filing and not the merits of the combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider that served as the basis for the dismissal of that motion. 
As noted, it is in the Director's discretion to accept a late filed motion to reopen, if the Director finds 
the delay to be reasonable and beyond the petitioner's control. Here, the Director declined to exercise 
his discretion finding that there was no evidence that the delay was reasonable and beyond the 
Petitioner's control. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Director erred in that determination. 
We will therefore not disturb the Director's decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2