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 I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in kitchen and bath remodeling and closet installation. seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 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 subsequently filed an 
appeal, which we dismissed, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish, as required. that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
. I 
capacity. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. On motion. the Petitioner asserts 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 he 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 
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 for 
the requested immigration benefit. 
1 The Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary had been employed abroad or would be employed in the United States 
in an executive capacity. 
Matter ofC-U-G- Corp. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In support of its motion to reconsider, the Petitioner provides a brief in which it contends that the 
Director's analysis was incorrect, asserting that it is a qualifying organization and that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity. 
The Petitioner offers job descriptions for the Beneficiary's foreign and U.S. employment and 
provides an untranslated 2 organizational chart pertaining to the Beneficiary"s employment abroad in 
an effort to address and overcome our findings on appeal. However, the Petitioner does not make 
any legal arguments related to the Beneficiary"s employment capacity abroad. There-submission of 
the job description and the foreign entity's organizational chart is insufficient to overcome our 
decision with respect to the Beneficiary's foreign employment. The Petitioner does not cite to any 
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. 
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 Beneficiary 
"primarily manages the essential function of market development in the United States. which 
reasonably requires him to rely on services from the foreign statl members whose duties directly 
support the U.S. subsidiary." Our prior decision included an analysis of the reasonable needs ofthe 
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 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The 
Petitioner's motion does not address the specific deficiencies we addressed 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. 
As the Petitioner has not established that there was an incorrect application of law or policy in our 
prior decision, we will deny the motion to reconsider. 
2 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.2(b )(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate. and that the 
translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. !d. Because the Petitioner did not submit a 
properly certified English language translation of the document, we cannot determine whether the translated material is 
accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's motion. 
2 
Matter ofC-U-G- Corp. 
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# 725547 (AAO Oct. 30, 2017) 
3