dismissed EB-1C Case: Furniture Seller

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 29, 2023 In Re: 29411913 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a furniture seller, 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 a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that: (1) it has been doing business for at least one year prior to the petition's filing date; (2) 
it has been able to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage since the petition's filing date; (3) it will 
employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; and (4) the 
Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director then 
granted the Petitioner's combined motion to reopen and reconsider, but reaffirmed the denial of the 
petition on the same grounds. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that decision, and four 
subsequent motions. The matter is now before us on motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior 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). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner states that copies of "certain precedent decisions" are attached in support of 
the motion. The Petitioner does not identify these precedent decisions, and the motion before us does 
not include copies of any precedent decisions. 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). The Petitioner's contentions in its current motion merely reargue facts 
and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that "a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a 
party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally 
alleging error in the prior Board decision." Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). In 
this instance, the brief submitted on the Petitioner's fifth motion is identical to the brief filed with the 
fourth motion, except for an updated chronology ofthe proceeding that takes into account the dismissal 
of that fourth motion. We already considered the arguments in that brief in our previous decision. 
The Petitioner does not explain why the same brief should now produce a different outcome. 
The Petitioner also submits copies of its 2022 tax return and related documents. We do not consider 
new evidence on motion to reconsider. As noted above, a motion to reconsider must establish that the 
prior decision was incorrect based on the evidence that was in the record at the time of that decision. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Furthermore, the Petitioner does not explain why documentation from 2022 
shows that the petition was approvable when the Petitioner filed it in 2017. The Petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). Tax documents can 
attest to the Petitioner's ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage, but the Petitioner must also 
establish that ability at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, we will dismiss 
the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2