dismissed EB-1C Case: Furniture Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10753367 
Motions on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Manager or Executive 
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 denied the petition and dismissed the Petitioner's following 
motion to reopen. We dismissed the Petitioner 's appeal and its following seven combined motions to 
reopen and reconsider. We ruled that the Petitioner's most recent filings did not address our grounds 
for dismissing the business 's sixth combined motions . See In re: 5352820 (AAO Feb. 6, 2020) . 
The matter is before us again on the Petitioner's eighth combined motions to reopen and 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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner's current motions suffer from the same defect as the business's immediately preceding 
filings: they do not discuss our most recent grounds of dismissal. In our most recent decision , we 
ruled that the Petitioner's filings did not address our dismissal of the business 's sixth combined 
motions as untimely . Similarly , the current motions do not discuss the reason for our most recent 
dismissals. The Petitioner does not submit evidence or argument that the business properly addressed 
the untimeliness of its sixth combined motions . Rather , the Petitioner submits evidence and argument 
regarding the nature of the Beneficiary 's proposed employment and the business 's purported 
qualifying relationship with his foreign employer. But the nature of the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment and the Petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship with his foreign employer constitute 
our grounds for dismissing the Petitioner's appeal and first five combined motions. The Petitioner 
must address the grounds of our most recent dismissal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The motions to reopen and reconsider do not address the dismissal grounds of our most recent decision. 
Thus, the filings do not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested benefit. We will 
therefore affirm the dismissals of the business's motions and appeal, and the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2