dismissed EB-1C Case: Furniture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15765285 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner describes itself as a seller of furniture products. It seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its "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)(l)(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 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 and the Director added that 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be an employee of the Petitioner or that 
it an employer-employee relationship would exist between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary. 
We dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, and declined to address the remaining grounds 
given that the identified basis of ineligibility was dispositive of the appeal. The matter is now before 
us on a combined motion to reopen and 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 combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of 
a properly completed Form l-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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner has offered new relevant facts 
supported by credible evidence or made arguments establishing that our decision to dismiss the appeal 
was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy with respect to the facts of this case. 
The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing (in this case, December 2017) and continuing through adjudication. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the 
prior adverse decision. As such, we will examine any new facts and supporting evidence that pertain 
to the dismissal of the appeal and we will consider arguments establishing that our decision was based 
on a misapplication of law or USCIS policy. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
As noted above, a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding 
and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
In the matter at hand, the Petitioner does not offer new facts that are relevant to the basis for our 
decision to dismiss the appeal. Although the Petitioner provides new evidence in the form of a 2019 
tax return, IRS Form W-2s for 2018 and 2019, and quarterly wage and tax documents for 2018 and 
2019, it does not state how the information offered in these documents is relevant to the issue of 
whether the facts and circumstances that existed in December 2017, when this petition was filed, 
demonstrated the Petitioner's ability to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
As previously noted, 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)(1). 
Because the Petitioner has not submitted relevant new facts, it has not met the requirements of a motion 
to reopen and the motion must be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
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 
2 
USCIS policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when filed, also 
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). As discussed below, this motion does not meet these requirements. 
In our decision, we restated and identified notable inconsistencies between the two iterations of job 
duty breakdowns that the Petitioner provided, noting that the inconsistencies between the two 
iterations created uncertainty as to the actual duties the Beneficiary would perform in his proposed 
position. We also discussed various documents, noting that although they contain the Beneficiary's 
signature, they indicate that the Beneficiary would perform non-qualifying operational tasks and 
because the Petitioner did not assign a percentage of time to these duties, it left us to question whether 
the Beneficiary would allocate his time primarily to managerial or executive tasks, as statutorily 
required. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. Aside from these deficiencies, we pointed 
out that despite claiming that the Beneficiary had been acting in his proposed role since 2016, the 
Petitioner offered a job description that was largely comprised of generic job duties that were not 
corroborated by evidence documenting the Beneficiary's implementation of sales or marketing 
strategies and his claimed role in setting the goals and policies of the organization. 
Lastly, we discussed the Petitioner's staffing, concluding that the evidence did not show that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in in an executive capacity or that he would manage personnel in a 
managerial capacity. Specifically, we noted that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
would have authority over the employees who are claimed as his subordinates, nor did it establish that 
the claimed subordinates are supervisory or professional employees. Also, we determined that the 
Petitioner provided wage documents indicating that it had only two employees by the time the petition 
was filed and we noted that the Petitioner provided no supporting evidence reflecting the Beneficiary's 
performance of executive-level duties or evidence corroborating the Petitioner's claim that it regularly 
hired independent contractors to performs sales duties. 
In sum, we provided a comprehensive analysis of the Petitioners claims and submissions and explained 
precisely how we reached an adverse conclusion. On motion, the Petitioner disagrees with our analysis 
of the evidence and argues that we did not "weigh all relevant factors." However, the Petitioner does 
not identify the "relevant factors" we failed to consider, nor does it state how we misapplied the law 
or USCIS policy in reaching an adverse determination regarding the Petitioner's eligibility. As a 
result, the filing does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider and must be dismissed 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
111. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration 
and has not overcome the basis for dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3