dismissed EB-1C Case: Furniture Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5352820 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 6, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Manager or Executive 
The Petitioner, a furniture retailer, 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center originally denied the petition on four separate grounds and 
then affirmed the denial on three grounds after reopening the case on the Petitioner's motion. We 
dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal, determining that it did not establish that (1) it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's last foreign employer, and (2) it will employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The Petitioner subsequently 
filed six combined motions to reopen and reconsider, which we denied. Most recently, we denied the 
Petitioner's sixth motion to reopen and reconsider because it was untimely filed. 
The matter is now before us again on a seventh combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, 
the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence in support of its claim that it meets all eligibility 
requirements for the benefit sought. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reopen and the 
motion to 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 reopen must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks 
to reopen, except that failure to file before this period expires may be excused in the discretion of 
USCIS where it is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and was beyond the control of the 
petitioner. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or 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 regulations require that a motion to reconsider be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Unlike a motion to reopen, there are no circumstances that may excuse the late filing of a motion to 
reconsider. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the 
immediate prior adverse decision. Here, the subject of the prior decision was our denial of the 
Petitioner's sixth combined motion to reopen and reconsider. As such, the purpose of this decision is 
to examine any new facts and supporting evidence pertaining to our denial of that motion, as well as 
any arguments that our decision was incorrect due to a misapplication of law or policy. 
In our immediate prior decision, issued on February 15, 2019, we determined that the Petitioner did 
not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or reconsider because it did not timely file the 
combined motion within 33 calendar days of the date we mailed the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(l)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b). We explained that we had mailed the unfavorable decision on the 
Petitioner's fifth combined motion on September 17, 2018, and noted that the Petitioner's Form I-
290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, was received at the designated filing location on October 23, 2018, 
36 days later. 
In support of its current combined motion, the Petitioner submits a brief in which it appears to be 
addressing an earlier decision issued by our office, rather than our immediate prior decision issued in 
February 2019. Specifically, the brief discusses our previous findings regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment in a managerial or executive capacity, and the Petitioner's qualifying relationship with 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
In its brief, the Petitioner does not acknowledge that its sixth combined motion was denied as untimely 
or otherwise attempt to overcome the basis for our unfavorable decision. It has not provided new 
facts in support of a claim that the motion to reopen should have been accepted as timely, nor does it 
articulate a claim that the late filing of the motion to reopen should be excused as a matter of discretion. 
Further, although the motion includes documentary evidence, the submitted exhibits do not relate to 
the timeliness of the prior motion. The Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
Further, the Petitioner has not claimed that our denial of its prior motion to reconsider was based on 
an incorrect application oflaw or policy. For this reason, the Petitioner has not met the requirements 
of a motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsidering 
our prior decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2