dismissed EB-1C Case: Furniture Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16188325 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, an operator of furniture stores, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
president under the first-preference, immigrant classification for multinational managers and executives. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S .C. § l 153(b)(l)(C) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center originally denied the petition on four separate grounds and 
left this denial undisturbed on three grounds after reopening the case on the Petitioner's motion . We 
later dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal, determining it did not establish that: (1) it had a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's former foreign employer, and (2) it would employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States . We then dismissed the 
Petitioner's subsequent eight sets of motions to reopen and reconsider. In our previous decision, we 
concluded that the Petitioner's most recent motions did not address our ground for dismissing its sixth 
set of motions . See In re: 10753367 (AAO Sept. 29, 2020) . 
The matter is before us again on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. The Petitioner bears 
the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1361. Upon review, we will dismiss both 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 only grant motions that meet these criteria and establish eligibility for the 
requested benefit. 
IL ANALYSIS 
In our last decision issued in September 2020, we stated that the Petitioner's prior motions did not 
address our dismissal of its sixth combined set of motions as untimely . Similarly, the motion to reopen 
and motion to reconsider before us now do not submit new evidence addressing the untimeliness of 
the Petitioner's sixth set of motions, nor do they articulate how our decision to dismiss its sixth set of 
motions as untimely was a misapplication of law or policy. Instead, the Petitioner again submits 
evidence and assertions related to the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment in a managerial or 
executive capacity and the its claimed qualifying relationship with his former foreign employer. 
However, the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment and the Petitioner's claimed qualifying 
relationship constitute our grounds for dismissing the Petitioner's appeal and its first five sets of 
motions. As the current motion to reopen and motion to reconsider do not address the ground of our 
most recent dismissal, they must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2