dismissed EB-1C Case: Floristry

identifying data deleted to 
ptevent clearly unwarranted 
iRvMon ofpenonal prtv:lc' 
i'UBL1C COpy 
DATE: APR 2 7 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1 )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please fmd 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. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, and a 
subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on a motion to reopen. The motion will be rejected 
as untimely filed. 
The petitioner, a retail and wholesale florist, seeks to employ the beneficiary as a store manager and 
flower designer at its San Juan, Puerto Rico location. 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 U.S.C. § 11S3(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
The director denied the petition based on the following grounds of ineligibility: (1) failure to 
establish that the beneficiary'S employment abroad was within a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity, and (2) failure to establish that the beneficiary'S proposed employment with the U.S. entity 
would be within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On March 29,2010 the AAO dismissed the appeal on the same grounds and on two additional grounds. 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 103.S(a) states that any motion to reopen a proceeding before the service 
filed by an applicant or petitioner, must be filed within 30 days ofthe decision that the motion seeks to 
reopen, except that failure to :file before this period expires, may be excused in the discretion of the 
Service where it is demonstrated that a delay was reasonable and way beyond the control ofthe applicant 
or petitioner. 
The AAO issued the decision on March 29,2010 and gave notice to the petitioner that it had 30 days 
to file a motion. Although counsel dated the Form I-290B Apri130, 2010, it was not received by the 
service center until May 4, 2010, or 34 days after the decision was issued. Accordingly, the motion 
was untimely filed. 
The petitioner did not provide any information as to why it failed to file the motion in the required time 
period. As a matter of discretion, the applicant's failure to :file the motion within the period allowed will 
not be excused as either reasonable or beyond the control ofthe applicant. Accordingly, the motion will 
be rejected as untimely filed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is rejected as untimely filed.