dismissed EB-1C Case: Freight Air Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-E- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 14, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a freight air transportation service company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its vice president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: ( 1) it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; 
and (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. We dismissed 
the Petitioner's appeal and have denied five subsequent motions, including three combined motions 
to reopen and reconsider and two motions to reconsider. 1 
The matter is now before us on another combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. The 
Petitioner points to our decision dated in April 2017 and contends that the previously submitted 
evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary is "entitled to the immigration benefit sought." 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for 
reconsideration; (2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may 
grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested 
immigration benefit. 
1 On April 18, 2016, we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. We subsequently denied four motions: (1) the Petitioner's 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider on September 27, 2016; (2) a motion to reconsider on April 27, 2017; (3) a 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider as untimely on September 20, 2017; ( 4) another motion to reopen and reconsider 
on May 22, 2018, and (5) a motion to reconsider on November 27, 2018. 
Matter of A-E- Inc. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts or legal arguments that 
demonstrate proper cause for reopening or reconsideration of our decision dated November 27, 2018. 
The Petitioner's combined motion includes the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and a brief 
that is identical to the brief submitted in support of its most recent motion to reconsider. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
As noted, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. Although the Petitioner 
indicated on the Form I-290B that it was filing a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, the brief 
references only the motion to reconsider. In fact, the Petitioner states that "the factual record already 
presented for this case" establishes that it is eligible for the benefit sought, and the Petitioner does not 
claim that it is submitting new facts in support of this motion. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted a brief, we interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant 
to the issue(s) raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding. Here, 
the Petitioner has re-submitted the brief that was provided in support of its last motion. Reasserting 
previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts." 
The Petitioner's motion to reopen does not contain any new facts that could be considered in a reopened 
proceeding and it is not supported by affidavits and/or documentary evidence demonstrating eligibility 
at the time the underlying petition was filed. Accordingly, we will deny the motion to reopen. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The remaining issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner's motion to reconsider demonstrates that 
our November 2018 decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy. 
On motion, the Petitioner refers to our decision issued April 27, 2017, and asserts that the 
preponderance of the evidence shows that "based on the factual record already presented for this case, 
[it] is entitled to the immigration benefits sought." However, the scope of our review here is limited 
to our most recent decision. We note that when a motion is filed, the petitioner may seek reopening 
or reconsideration of the immediate prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
In our immediate prior decision, we determined that the Petitioner's motion to reconsider (its fifth 
motion) did not address the reasons for our denial of its fourth motion in May 2018 and therefore did 
not establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Our 
decision also included a discussion of our May 2018 decision and our reasons for denial of the 
Petitioner's fourth motion. The Petitioner has not established with the current motion that we 
misapplied the law or any agency policy by denying a motion to reconsider that did not meet the 
regulatory requirements. 
In fact, the Petitioner's current motion contains no references to our latest decision. Rather, the 
Petitioner cites to precedent case law that addresses our original grounds for dismissing the appeal; 
2 
Matter of A-E- Inc. 
neither the case law nor the Petitioner's current contentions address our decision to deny its most 
recent motion or attempt to establish that our November 2018 decision was the result of an incorrect 
application of law or policy. We farther note that the Petitioner's reference to previously submitted 
evidence is also insufficient to warrant reconsideration of our prior decision. Any evidence that had 
been submitted in support of the Petitioner's prior filings was already considered and addressed and 
will not be farther considered in the instant proceeding. In fact, the legal arguments made in the 
current brief were previously submitted not only in support of the Petitioner's fifth motion, but also in 
support of its second motion. 
The Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not state the reasons for reconsideration of our November 
2018 decision and does not establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider will be denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration 
and has not overcome the grounds for denial of its previous motion to reconsider. The motion to 
reopen and motion to reconsider will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-E- Inc., ID# 3980476 (AAO June 14, 2019) 
3