dismissed EB-1C Case: Customer Contact Services

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 2 7 2015 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Sccuri.ty 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thalk you, 
. 
---"" 
� Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center denied the preference visa petition. The 
petitioner appealed the denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), and we dismissed the 
appeal. The matter is again before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
The combined motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 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 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The petitioner is engaged in "global provider customer contact." The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary in the position of Director of Implementation and Support. 
The director denied the petition on February 25, 2014, concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad was within a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. The petitioner submitted an appeal of the director's decision to us. We reviewed the 
record of proceeding and determined it did not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary had been employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. We provided a 
comprehensive analysis of the director's decision and dismissed the appeal. 
L M<YriON REQUIREMENTS 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that this combined motion will be dismissed because 
the motion does not merit either reopening or reconsideration. 
A. Overarching Requirement for Motions by a Petitioner 
The provision at 8 C. F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) includes the following statement limiting a USCIS 
officer's authority to reopen the proceeding or reconsider the decision to instances where "proper 
cause" has been shown for such action: 
[T]he official having jurisdiction may, for proper cause shown, reopen the 
proceeding or reconsider the prior decision. 
Thus, to merit reopening or reconsideration, the submission must not only meet the formal 
requirements for filing (such as, for instance, submission of a Form I-290B that is properly 
completed and signed, and accompanied by the correct fee), but the petitioner must also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. As stated in the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), 
"Processing motions in proceedings before the Service," "[a] motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed." 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reopen 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2), "Requirements for motion to reopen," states: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
A motion to reopen must [(1)] state the new facts to be provided in the reopened 
proceeding and [(2)] be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence .... 
This provision is supplemented by the related instruction at Part 3 of the Form I-290B, which 
states: 1 
Motion to Reopen: The motion must state new facts and must be supported by 
affidavits and/or documentary evidence. 
Further, the new facts must possess such significance that, ''if proceedings ... were reopened, with 
all the attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case. " lvfatter 
o[Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-
40 (lOth Cir. 2013). 
C. Requirements for Motions to Reconsider 
The regulation at 8 C. F. R. § 103. 5(a)(3), "Requirements for motion to reconsider," states: 
A motion to reconsider must [(1)] state the reasons for reconsideration and [(2)] be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a 
decision on an application or petition must [(3)], [(a)] when filed, also [(b)] establish 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. 
These provisions are augmented by the related instruction at Part 3 of the Form I-290B, which 
states: 
Motion to Reconsider: The motion must be supported by citations to appropriate 
statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions. 
A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the prior decision based on the previous fachml 
record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new facts. Compare 
8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3) and 8 C. F. R. § 103. 5(a)(2). 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) states in pertinent part: 
Every benefit request or other document submitted to DHS must be executed and filed in 
accordance with the form instructions, notwithstanding any provision of 8 CFR chapter I to 
the contrary, such instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
A motion to reconsider should not be used to raise a legal argument that could have been raised 
earlier in the proceedings. See Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 219 (BIA 1990, 1991) 
("Arguments for consideration on appeal should all be submitted at one time, rather than in 
piecemeal fashion."). Rather, any "arguments" that are raised in a motion to reconsider should flow 
from new law or a de novo legal determination that could not have been addressed by the affected 
party. Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (examining motions to reconsider under a 
similar scheme provided at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)); see also Martinez-Lopez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 169, 
171-72 (1st Cir. 2013). Further, the reiteration of previous arguments or general allegations of error 
in the prior decision will not suffice. Instead, the affected party must state the specific factual and 
legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in the initial decision. See 
Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 60. 
II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 
The submission constituting the combined motion consists of the Form I-290B and a letter 
submitted by counsel. 
A. Dismissal of the Motion to Reopen 
On motion, counsel for the petitioner submits a letter stating that the "Service erred in denying the 
appeal" because the "Service's denial rested solely upon the fact that the beneficiary, [the 
beneficiary], entered the USA with an L-1 B visa and later changed status to the L-1 A visa." 
Counsel made this same statement on appeal and it was addressed by us in our decision. Upon 
review, we find that the petitioner did not provide any new facts or documentation in this motion. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that the evidence submitted on this motion would change 
the outcome of this case if the proceeding were reopened. 
"There is a strong public interest in bringing [a case] to a close as promptly as is consistent with the 
interest in giving the [parties] a fair opportunity to develop and present their respective cases." INS 
v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107 (1988 ). Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are 
disfavored for the same reasons as petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of 
newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 
U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden" of proof. INS v. 
Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the petitioner and its counsel have not met that 
burden. 
B. Dismissal of the Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by citations to 
pertinent statutes, regulations, and/or 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) (detailing the 
requirements for a motion to reconsider). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC�ION 
Page 5 
On motion, counsel reiterates statements made on appeal. Upon review, we find that the petitioner 
did not properly state the reasons for reconsideration. The petitioner does not articulate how our 
decision was based on incorrect application of law or policy. 
We conclude that the documents constituting this motion do not articulate how our decision on appeal 
misapplied any pertinent statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions to the evidence of record when 
the decision to dismiss the appeal was rendered. The petitioner has therefore not submitted any 
document that would meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the motion to 
reconsider must be dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petitioner should note that, unless USCIS directs otherwise, the filing of a motion to reopen or 
reconsider does not stay the execution of any decision in a case or extend a previously set departure 
date. 8 C. F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the combined motion will be 
dismissed, the proceedings will not be reopened or reconsidered, and our previous decision will not be 
disturbed. 
ORDER: The combined motion is dismissed.