dismissed EB-1C Case: Food Import And Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12009031 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV. 24, 2020 
Form I-140C, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a food import and distribution company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary 
as its President in the United States under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C . 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(C). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish, 
as required, that: (1) the Petitioner had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's former foreign 
employer; (2) the Petitioner was doing business in accordance with the regulations; and (3) the 
Beneficiary would act in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States . In addition, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner and Beneficiary willfully misrepresented material facts related to his claimed 
foreign employment. 
The Petitioner later appealed the decision and we dismissed the appeal. We withdrew the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner was not doing business, but affirmed the remaining grounds for denial. 
In addition, we concurred with the Director 's determination that the Petitioner and Beneficiary willfully 
misrepresented material facts and noted additional willful misrepresentations on the part of both. The 
Petitioner subsequently filed two combined motions to reopen and reconsider, which we dismissed . 1 The 
matter is again before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
Upon review , we will dismiss the motions . 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(2) . 
In contrast, a motion to reconsider must establish that our most recent decision misapplied law or U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services policy based on the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). We may grant motions that meet these criteria and establish eligibility for the requested 
benefit. 
1 The Petitioner also filed an appeal of our decision denying its second combined motion, which we rejected for lack of 
jurisdiction. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In support of its combined motion, the Petitioner's general manager provided the following statement 
on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion (verbatim): 
As we have submitted and demonstrated on the previous filings of I-290B, all the 
supporting evidence/documents have been piled to your desk, either from the parent 
company [] or from the local government,! I governing administrative body and 
also from official copies of [the Petitioner]. I just want you, the respectable and 
reasonable officials, to reopen the files and let us know what other documents you can 
think of that we should farther submit in order for you to reopen and reconsider the 
case. Ever since [the Beneficiary] came into the executive management of [the 
Petitioner], we've been strictly complying with all laws and regulations, paying all the 
relevant taxes and fees to support our great nations. Even during the recent pandemic 
disaster, we still keep our taxes paid on time and keep our employees not to be burden 
to our country. [The Beneficiary] has sold his personal property and drew from his 
own personal account to ensure all employees on payroll so as not to squeeze the 
unemployment benefit as most other entities do. As a managing assistant to the 
company and citizen of USA, I am grateful to and proud of the decision [the 
Beneficiary] made to help our country with the best he can, and moved when he asked 
me find ways about how he could help to support our local frontrunners to fight the 
COVID-19. For such a honest and helpful gentleman, I could not understand why our 
USCIS officials just stick with the minor mistake he made when he was interviewed at 
the consulate by not mentioning [the parent company]. We are human, and what I 
learned in US is that human does make mistake, even the president of our country. 
No additional evidence or documentation was submitted. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). In our prior decisions we found that the Petitioner had not established that it had a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's former foreign employer or that the Beneficiary would act 
in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States, and we affirmed the Director's determination 
with regard to willful misrepresentation on the part of both the Petitioner and the Beneficiary. In the 
current motion the Petitioner generally references previously submitted evidence and documentation, 
which has already been considered in our previous decisions. No new facts are submitted with the 
current motion, nor any new documentation related to the Petitioner's qualifying relationship with the 
foreign entity or the Beneficiary's employment in a managerial or executive capacity. Moreover, 
while the Petitioner references the Beneficiary's "mistake," it does not state new facts or submit new 
evidence regarding the willful misrepresentation determination. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening the proceedings. 
2 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The Petitioner does not identify any incorrect application oflaw or 
policy in our prior decision with regard to the Petitioner's qualifying relationship with the foreign 
entity or the Beneficiary's employment in a managerial or executive capacity, and does not request 
reconsideration of the willful misrepresentation determination. Although the Petitioner urges us to 
consider the previously submitted evidence and documentation, we have already done so in prior 
decisions. The Petitioner does not identify any incorrect application of law or policy by us in our most 
recent decision or any of our prior decisions. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration of our previous decision 
with regard to the Petitioner's qualifying relationship with the foreign entity or its employment of the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or with regard to the finding of willful 
misrepresentation of material facts. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration of our prior decision, nor 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3