dismissed EB-1C Case: Event Planning

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 13, 2025 In Re: 36175825 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a provider of planning services for weddings and other events, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as its general manager. It requests his classification under the employment-based, first­
preference immigrant visa category as a multinational executive. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish it would employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity as claimed. We dismissed the 
Petitioner's subsequent appeal on the same grounds. We further observed that the record before us on 
appeal did not demonstrate, as required, that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and 
reconsider. 
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 
motions. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or 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). A motion to reopen must state new facts and be 
supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). In this case, the most recent decision is our October 1, 2024, decision 
dismissing the Petitioner's appeal. 
While the Petitioner has submitted a brief on motion, most of it is copied nearly verbatim from the 
brief it submitted in support of its appeal. The brief references the Director's decision but does not 
discuss the specific conclusions we reached in our appellate decision with respect to the Beneficiary's 
proposed employment capacity in the United States. As such, the Petitioner's contentions in its current 
motion merely repeat the facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decision. See 
e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by 
which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by 
generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). 
Because the Petitioner has not directly addressed our decision dismissing the appeal, it has not stated 
any specific reasons for reconsideration of that decision, nor has it claimed or demonstrated that our 
prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider. 
Further, the Petitioner has not submitted new facts, supported by documentary evidence, relating to 
the Beneficiary's proposed employment capacity in the United States. We will not re-adjudicate the 
petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
Although not addressed in the Director's decision, we informed the Petitioner in our prior decision 
that the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate the claimed parent-subsidiary 
relationship between the Beneficiary's foreign employer and the Petitioner. 1 Because the Director did 
not provide notice of these evidentiary deficiencies, we advised the Petitioner that it should submit 
additional evidence of the claimed qualifying relationship in any future filings. 
Specifically, we noted that while the Petitioner claimed to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the 
Beneficiary's former foreign employer, the record contained copies of the Petitioner's federal income 
tax returns for 2017, 2020 and 2021, all of which identified the Beneficiary, and not the foreign 
employer, as the Petitioner's sole owner. We also observed that, while the Petitioner submitted a copy 
of a stock certificate it purportedly issued to the foreign employer, the certificate did not state "[t]he 
number and class of shares" as required by the laws of Washington State, where the Petitioner is 
domiciled. See Wash. Rev. Code§ 23B.06.250(2)(c). 
On motion, the Petitioner claims that it is an affiliate of the foreign entity, based on common ownership 
and control of both entities by the same group of three individuals. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) ( defining 
"affiliate," in part, as "one of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, 
each in individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity"). 
Despite this new claim of an affiliate relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities, the Petitioner 
submits an affidavit from the Beneficiary, who states that the petitioning company is "owned and 
controlled by the parent Indian company." He further states that "[n]otwithstanding the subject tax 
returns reflect that I am the sole owner of [ the Petitioner]," the "actual owners" are the three individuals 
who own the foreign entity. The Petitioner re-submits a copy of the foreign entity's deed of partnership 
demonstrating its ownership by the three individuals named in the Beneficiary's affidavit. However, 
this evidence does not sufficiently address or overcome the deficiencies addressed in our prior 
decision. 
1 A petitioner seeking to classify a beneficiary as a multinational manager or executive must show that it is the same entity 
as, or a subsidiary or affiliate of the beneficiary's foreign employer. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). 
2 
The Petitioner acknowledges that it previously submitted federal income tax returns identifying the 
Beneficiary as its sole shareholder. The Beneficiary's statement suggests that the ownership 
information the Petitioner provided in its tax returns was incorrect, but the motion does not include 
evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner has, for example, sought to file amended tax returns. 
Further, it is unclear based on the statements made on motion whether the Petitioner now claims an 
affiliate relationship with the foreign entity based on common ownership by the same individuals, or 
whether it is maintaining its previous claim that it is wholly owned by the Indian entity. Finally, the 
brief and evidence submitted on motion do not address our concerns regarding the validity of the stock 
certificate purportedly issued to the foreign entity. Therefore, the record as presently constituted does 
not demonstrate the claimed qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, it has 
not established eligibility. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. 
Therefore, the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3