dismissed EB-1C Case: Computer Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24993143 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 03, 2023 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a computer software development and consulting company, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as a "Manager - Infrastructure Operations Specialist" 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. § l 153(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 record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary had been employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, 
in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director further determined that the record contained 
willful misrepresentations of material fact with respect to the nature of the Beneficiary's employment 
within the organization . The Petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider. The Director reopened the matter, and, following issuance of a notice of intent to deny, 
issued a new decision denying the petition on the same grounds . The Petitioner then filed a motion to 
reopen, which the Director also dismissed . The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
Our review on appeal is generally limited to the basis for the immediate prior decision. Accordingly, 
the sole issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established that the Director improperly dismissed 
its motion to reopen. 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must ( 1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
The Director dismissed the Petitioner's motion to reopen after determining that it did not meet these 
regulatory requirements. Specifically, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's motion did not state 
new facts and was not supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which it primarily addresses the grounds for denial of the 
underlying petition. However, as noted above, the Petitioner did not appeal the denial order itself: but 
rather the Director's latest unfavorable decision (dated July 6, 2022), in which the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner's motion to reopen did not meet applicable requirements. The merits of the denial 
decision, and of the underlying petition, are not before us. 
The Petitioner's appellate brief mentions the Director's dismissal of its motion to reopen only in 
passing. It does not acknowledge, much less contest, the stated basis for dismissal of that motion. 
Further, the record supports the Director's decision to dismiss the motion to reopen. The brief that 
accompanied the motion requested that the matter be reopened so that the Director could "consider 
additional evidence" and referred to "accompanying evidence." However, the record reflects that the 
motion to reopen consisted solely of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, a copy of the 
Director's unfavorable decision dated March 16, 2022, and a brief; the motion was not supported by 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. In addition, the brief repeated statements made in the 
Petitioner's previous submissions and did not provide new facts for consideration on motion. 
As such, the Director correctly concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements for a motion 
to reopen at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements must be 
dismissed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has neither claimed nor demonstrated that 
the Director dismissed the motion to reopen in error. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2