dismissed EB-1C Case: Home Remodeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-U-G- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 30,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in kitchen and bath remodeling and closet installation, 1 seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as a manager 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Petitioner tiled an appeal, which 
we dismissed, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary 
worked for a qualifYing entity abroad for at least one year; (2) the Beneficiary would be employed in 
the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; and (3) the Petitioner had been doing business 
for one year prior to filing the instant petition. The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence, asserting that the Beneficiary 
meets the one-year foreign employment requirement notwithstanding any discrepancies in the 
record. The Petitioner also argues that the prior decisions mischaracterized the nature of the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities, disregarded his placement in the company's organizational chart, and 
failed to consider that the Beneficiary would rely on services from foreign staff members who 
directly support the U.S. subsidiary. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider must establish that we based our decision 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. A petitioner must support its motion to reconsider with a pertinent 
1 
On several documents, including the Form 1-140 petition and its own company letterhead, the Petitioner places the 
suffix "LLC" after its name, indicating that the Petitioner is a limited liability company. The record shows, however, 
that the Petitioner is a corporation, not a limited liability company. 
Matter ofC-U-G- Corp. 
precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility tor 
the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In support of its motion to reconsider, the Petitioner provides a brief in which it reiterates portions of 
the Act and regulations that highlight the eligibility requirements applicable to this visa 
classification. 
Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa available to a beneficiary who, in the three 
years preceding the tiling of the petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one 
year in a managerial or executive capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to 
render managerial or executive services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. 
A United States employer may file Form I-140, Immigrant Petition tor Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. The petition 
must include a statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United States employer which 
demonstrates that the beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity tor at 
least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to 
work in the United States for the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and 
that the prospective U.S. employer has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5G)(3). 
With respect to the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment, the Petitioner cites to section 
10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(C), in support of its claim that we should have 
considered the reasonable needs of the organization in determining whether the Beneficiary would 
be employed in a managerial capacity. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to 
consider its staff located in Brazil and its "reasonable need tor a senior-level employee to manage 
the essential function of developing its brands and presence in the United States," despite its five­
person U.S.-based support staff. Our prior decision included an analysis of the reasonable needs of 
the petitioning organization, and a discussion of why the evidence submitted did not establish that 
the Beneficiary would be employed as a function manager under section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The Petitioner's motion does not address the specific deficiencies we discussed in our decision. We 
did not consider the role that the foreign entity's employees play in supporting the U.S. organization 
as the Petitioner did not previously claim that the Beneficiary relies on the foreign staff or state that 
the foreign entity's staff support the U.S. company. Therefore, the Petitioner's claim that it is 
reasonable to believe that the Beneficiary relies on such staff is not supported by the record and does 
not overcome our prior decision. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's qualifying year of employment abroad, our prior decision included 
a lengthy discussion of a number of inconsistencies in the record that the Petitioner was unable to 
2 
Matter ofC-U-G- Corp. 
resolve. Specifically, the record suggested that the Beneficiary's actual foreign employer was an 
entity that was not related to the petitioning entity in this matter. Further, we emphasized that there 
was a lack of corroborating evidence to support the Petitioner's claim that he had actually worked 
for its Brazilian affiliate. 
On motion, the Petitioner restates the Beneficiary's claimed dates of employment with its foreign 
affiliate and broadly contends that any previously submitted information that conflicts with this 
employment history was the result of "an honest mistake to be corrected.'' The Petitioner also 
claims that the Beneficiary simultaneously worked for the qualifying foreign affiliate and a separate 
unrelated entity. We find that the Petitioner's explanation, which is not supported by the evidence in 
the record, is not sufficient to overcome the many discrepancies discussed in our prior decision. The 
Petitioner must resolve the inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner 
has not established that we based our decision on an incorrect application of law or policy or that our 
decision was incorrect with respect to this eligibility requirement. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that it was doing business for at least one year when it filed this 
petition in September 2014 and resubmits a copy of its 2013 tax return. We already considered the 
Petitioner's previously submitted tax return and explained why it was not sut1icient to establish that 
the company had been doing business for one full year at the time of filing. The Petitioner does not 
specifically address our findings or cite to pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or 
regulatory provision, or statement of USCIS or DHS policy, as required, to establish that we 
incorrectly applied law or policy in our prior decision in support of this motion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofC-U-G- Corp., ID# 731277 (AAO Oct. 30, 2017) 
3