dismissed EB-1C Case: Furniture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19057383 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 12, 2022 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner describes itself as a seller of furniture products and seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its "President" under the fust preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(l)(C), 8 U.S.C . 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) it had been doing business for more than one year prior to the date the 
petition was filed; (2) it had the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage as of the date the 
petition was filed; (3) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; 
and (4) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. Although the Director granted 
the motion, the denial of the petition was affirmed on the same grounds. The Director also determined 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be an employee of the Petitioner or that 
an employer-employee relationship would exist. 
The Petitioner then filed an appeal. We dismissed the appeal, concluding the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, and we 
declined to address the remaining grounds given that the identified basis of ineligibility was 
dispositive . 1 The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider that we dismissed . 
The matter is now before us again on a motion to reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon review , we will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to 
reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
1 The sole issue we will discuss in this decision is the only issue discussed in our prior appeal and motion decisions ; 
namely, whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Since this issue is dispositive , we decline to reach and hereby reserve its arguments with respect to the other bases of our 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reconsider to instances where the 
Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reconsideration, a petitioner must 
not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly completed Form 
I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause for granting the 
motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet the applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested 
immigration benefit. A motion to reconsider must include an allegation of material factual or legal 
errors in the prior decision, supported by pertinent authority, and ifthere has been a change in law, a 
reference to the relevant statute, regulation, or precedent and an explanation of how the outcome of 
the decision is materially affected by the change. Matter of O-S-G, 24 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2006). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our prior decision, we concluded that the Petitioner had not met the requirements of a motion 
reopen, indicating that it did not offer new facts relevant to our dismissal of its appeal. We pointed to 
the fact that the evidence provided on motion, a 2019 tax return, IRS Form W-2s for 2018 and 2019, 
and quarterly wage and tax documents for 2018 and 2019, were not relevant to the Beneficiary's 
eligibility as of the date the petition was filed in December 2017. Further, in dismissing the motion to 
reconsider, we discussed our analysis in the prior appeal decision, including material inconsistencies 
between the Beneficiary's job duty descriptions, documentation on the record reflecting his 
performance of non-qualifying operational duties, the generic nature of his claimed qualifying duties, 
the lack of supporting documentation showing his performance of qualifying managerial or executive­
level duties, and the fact the Petitioner had only two employees when the petition was filed. In sum, 
we determined that we had provided a comprehensive analysis in our appeal decision as to why the 
Beneficiary did not qualify for the benefit sought and concluded that the Petitioner did not sufficiently 
articulate how this conclusion was inconsistent with law or USCIS policy. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends we erred in dismissing the prior motion to reopen and in not 
considering the 2018 and 2019 tax documentation submitted in support of that motion. The Petitioner 
asserts it was improper for us to disregard this evidence because it "proved that the Petitioner has 
sufficient staff to relieve the beneficiary form [sic] non-qualifying job duties and to [be] primarily 
engaged in executive duties." Further, the Petitioner indicates that we erred in concluding that the 
Beneficiary would not "primarily engage in [an] executive job capacity." The Petitioner states that 
the record contains sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary meets the regulatory definition 
of an executive, noting that the Beneficiary has "provided detailed descriptions for each position with 
sufficient detail" as well as other supporting evidence to demonstrate his qualifying tasks. The 
prior appeal dismissal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 
516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2 
Petitioner also points to a submitted organizational chart reflecting the Beneficiary's executive-level 
position and indicates it need only demonstrate that he would primarily perform managerial or 
executive-level tasks (or as noted by the Petitioner, more than 51 % qualifying tasks). 2 
First, we do not agree that it was inconsistent with applicable law or USCIS policy to dismiss the 
Beneficiary's prior motion to reopen and in not discussing specifically the 2018 and 2019 tax 
documentation and wage tax forms provided in support of that motion. As noted in our prior decision, 
this evidence was relevant to the period after the date the petition was filed and not probative in 
demonstrating that the Petitioner had sufficient staffing as of the date the petition was filed to relieve 
the Beneficiary from non-qualifying job duties and to allow him to be primarily engaged in managerial 
or executive-level executive duties. Again, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied as of the time of the filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
Further, this additional evidence did not address our various other reasons for concluding that the 
Beneficiary would not be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Further, the Petitioner's 
contentions in support of the prior motion to reconsider also did not discuss these other bases for our 
dismissal articulated in our appeal decision. For instance, on motion, the Petitioner asserts that it need 
only demonstrate that the Beneficiary would primarily perform managerial or executive-level tasks. 
We agree. In fact, we specifically discussed this issue in our appeal decision, pointing to extensive 
supporting documentation submitted on the record indicating the Beneficiary's direct involvement in 
non-qualifying operational tasks when the petition was filed, such as Amazon receipts reflecting his 
signature, several invoices from a shipping company from late 201 7 including his name as a contact, 
bank account records with checks written and signed by him for payment to various vendors for small 
expenses such as its propane, insurance, and cable bills, and automobile loan payments, amongst other 
similar supporting documentation. We also noted that in contrast, the Petitioner submitted no 
supporting evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's delegation of these non-qualifying tasks to his 
asserted subordinates. However, the Petitioner did not directly address this material basis for dismissal 
in support of its prior motions or this motion; for instance, by articulating and documenting how he 
was specifically relieved of these tasks as of the date the petition was filed, and by whom. 
As noted in our appeal decision, whether the Beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee turns 
on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" 
managerial or executive. See sections 10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. The Petitioner has not 
documented what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would be managerial or executive functions 
2 It is noteworthy that in our prior appeal decision we also indicated that throughout the record the Petitioner ambiguously 
discussed the Beneficiary as being employed in both an executive and a managerial capacity but did not clearly indicate 
which category he qualified under. Again, a petitioner claiming that a beneficiary will perform as a "hybrid" 
manager/executive will not meet its burden of proof unless it has demonstrated that the beneficiary will primarily engage 
in either managerial or executive capacity duties. See section IO I ( a)( 44)(A )-(B) of the Act. While in some instances there 
may be duties that could quality as both managerial and executive in nature, it is the petitioner's burden to establish that 
the beneficiary's duties meet each criteria set forth in the statutory definition for either managerial or executive capacity. A 
petition may not be approved if the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary will be primarily employed 
in either a managerial or executive capacity. Still, in support of this motion to reconsider, the Petitioner continues to 
ambiguously discuss the Beneficiary as qualifying as an executive and manager, interchanging the use of these terms in its 
motion brief. 
3 
and what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner provided substantial documentation 
indicating the Beneficiary's direct involvement in non-qualifying operational tasks when the petition 
was filed but did not, and still does not despite two sets of motions, quantify the time he would spend 
on these different duties. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary would have 
primarily performed the duties of a manager or an executive as of the date the petition was filed. See 
IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
Therefore, we do not agree with the Petitioner's assertion on motion that the Beneficiary's duty 
description is sufficiently detailed or that we did not properly consider whether he primarily performs 
qualifying tasks. In fact, the Petitioner did not remedy this material evidentiary deficiency in support 
of its previous motion to reopen, nor does it articulate why our previous conclusions related to the 
evidence of substantial operational duties performed by the Beneficiary are inconsistent with law or 
USCIS policy. Likewise, we also indicated that despite claiming the Beneficiary had been acting in 
his proposed role since 2016, the Petitioner offered a job description largely comprised of generic job 
duties not corroborated by supporting documentation substantiating his claimed implementation of 
sales or marketing strategies and setting of goals and policies for the organization, amongst other 
asserted managerial or executive-level tasks. Again, the Petitioner does not indicate why this 
conclusion is in error or why our previous decision to agree with this determination was inconsistent 
with applicable law or USCIS policy. 
Lastly, in our prior motion decision, we noted that we had provided a comprehensive analysis of the 
submitted evidence on appeal and explained precisely why it had been dismissed. However, in support 
of the prior motion to reconsider, the Petitioner only stated that our appeal decision did not "weigh all 
relevant factors." As discussed in our prior decision, the Petitioner did not identify the "relevant 
factors" we failed to consider, nor did it specifically state how we misapplied applicable law or USCIS 
policy in our appeal decision. In support of the current motion, the Petitioner also does not articulate 
why this prior determination on motion was inconsistent with applicable law or policy. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider and it must be dismissed pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4