dismissed EB-1C Case: Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
identi@ing data de!ded to 
prevent clearly unwmtd 
invasion of personal privacy 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JuL 0 9 2008 
LIN 03 139 52606 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Pobert P. Wiemann, C 
1" 
dministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Office (MO). The appeal was ultimately 
dismissed. The matter then came before the MO on motion to reopen and reconsider. While the MO 
granted the petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider, the underlying decision dismissing the appeal was 
affirmed. Counsel then filed a second motion to reopen and reconsider, which the MO dismissed. The 
matter is now before the AAO on a third motion to reconsider, which will also be dismissed. 
The petitioner is an Oregon corporation engaged in exporting commodity items to the Russian Far East. It 
seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice president. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the 
beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director 
denied the petition based on the following grounds: 1) the petitioner has not established that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer; and 2) the beneficiary's proposed employment 
is not within a managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner appealed the denial disputing the director's findings. However, the AAO upheld the director's 
overall decision on the grounds listed above. 
On motion, counsel submitted a brief addressing each of the two grounds that served as the basis for denial 
and subsequent dismissal of the appeal. The AAO reviewed the record in its entirety and reevaluated the 
prior adverse finding with regard to the petitioner's qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign 
employer. However, with regard to the beneficiary's proposed employment with the U.S. petitioner, the AAO 
reaffirmed the prior finding and provided an in-depth analysis that served as the basis therefore. 
On second motion, counsel submitted another brief and additional evidence addressing the remaining ground 
of ineligibility. With regard to the motion to reopen, the AAO determined that the petitioner failed to submit 
any fact that can be deemed new.' With regard to the petitioner's motion to reconsider, the AAO determined that 
the case law introduced by counsel did not include precedent decisions that are binding on all Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) employees. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(c). 
On present motion, counsel urges the AAO to reconsider its prior decision with regard to the beneficiary's 
employment capacity, listing the various supporting documents that were previously submitted. Despite the fact 
that the MO has issued several decisions explaining why the documentation previously submitted is insufficient, 
counsel insists that there is no more documentation available to establish the petitioner's eligibility. In yet another 
attempt to establish that the beneficiary's employment in the United States is executive in nature, counsel restates 
the statutory definition of executive capacity and discusses how the beneficiary satisfies each of the four 
components that make up the definition. However, with regard to a motion to reconsider, the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(3) state the following, 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 CIS policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or 
I 
 The word "new" is defined as " 1. having existed or been made for only a short time . . .3. Just discovered, found, or learned 
<new evidence> . . . ." WEBSTER'S IINEw RIVERSIDE UNNERSITY DICTIONARY 792 (1984)(emphasis in original). 
Page 3 
petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 
Thus, the purpose of a motion is different from the purpose of an appeal. While the AAO conducts a 
comprehensive review of the entire record on appeal, a review in the case of a motion to reconsider is strictly 
limited to an examination of any purported misapplication of law of CIS policy, which must be supported by 
precedent case law. As such, counsel's most recent recitation of the beneficiary's proposed employment does 
not meet the provisions of a motion to reconsider. This matter has now been reviewed by the AAO on three 
prior occasions, with the most recent motion being the fourth occasion for review. Any information regarding 
the beneficiary's proposed employment, particularly his job duties, should have been provided on appeal. 
There is no regulatory or statutory provision that allows a petitioner more than one appellate decision per 
every petition filed. In the present matter, an appellate decision was issued and the deficiencies were 
expressly stated. The petitioner cannot continue filing motions in an effort to overcome the deficiencies it had 
the opportunity to overcome on appeal. As with the prior motions, counsel continues to cite only unpublished 
decisions that are not binding on CIS employees. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(c). Accordingly, the petitioner has 
failed to meet the regulatory provisions for a motion to reconsider. 
Therefore, the AAO will dismiss the petitioner's motion to reconsider 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. 
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.