dismissed EB-1C Case: Construction

~: ,:~¥JC:":'~ '~~ .. <, 
t.:7C:'::O:")" C~,: rL:0·~-'.~.- '~ 
PlffiUCc nrY 
DATE: JUN 20 Z012 
INRE: 
,,--,(, ." 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b){l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 53(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
petitioner subsequently filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), where the appeal was 
dismissed. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reconsider, which will also be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its operation manager. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant 
to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 US.c. § 1 1 53(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary had been employed abroad, or that he would be employed in the United States, 
in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disputed the director's findings and asserted that the beneficiary met the statutory 
requirements in question. The AAO concurred with the director's conclusions and dismissed the appeal. 
On motion, counsel asks the AAO to consider the downturn in the US. economy, which delayed the 
petitioner's ability to hire additional personnel. Counsel also states that the beneficiary has benefitted the 
local community by hiring independent contractors and completing large construction projects. Additionally, 
in support of the motion, the petitioner offers tax and business documents pertaining to the beneficiary's 
foreign and proposed employers. 
Turning to the regulatory requirements of a motion to reopen, 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) states, in pertinent part: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or 
petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 
Counsel does not cite any legal precedent or applicable law that would indicate an error on the part of the 
AAO in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. Rather, counsel seemingly seeks to have the AAO conduct a de 
novo review of the newly submitted evidence, as is done when an appeal is filed. However, the matter before 
the AAO currently is a motion to reconsider, the goal of which is to correct legal error made by the AAO in 
its prior decision. The petitioner has not cited to precedent case law to show that the AAO's misapplied laws 
or uscrs policies. Therefore, the petitioner's submissions do not meet the criteria for a motion to reconsider. 
As such, the motion will be dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), which states, in pertinent 
part, that a motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
Furthermore, the motion shall be dismissed for failing to meet an applicable requirement. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(iii)(C) requires that motions be "[a]ccompanied by a statement about whether or not 
the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding." The motion 
does not contain the statement required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(4) states that a motion which does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed. Therefore, 
because the instant motion did not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C), it must also be dismissed for this reason. 
Page 3 
As a final note, the proper filing of a motion to reopen and/or reconsider does not stay the AAO's prior 
decision to dismiss an appeal or extend a beneficiary's previously set departure date. 8 C.F .R. 
§ I03.5(a)(l)(iv). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.