dismissed EB-1C Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12094050 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, an information technology services and consulting company, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its "Vice President - Technology " under the fust 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that (1) the Beneficiary's U.S . employment would be in a managerial or 
executive capacity , and (2) the Beneficiary had been employed by the foreign entity in a managerial 
or executive position for at least one year in the three years preceding his entry into the United States . 
The Petitioner filed an appeal, which we summarily dismissed. The matter is now before us on a 
combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider . 
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, the Petitioner has not met this burden. 
Accordingly, we will dismiss the combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
I. LAW 
To merit reopening or reconsideration , a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements and show 
proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). A motion to reopen must state the new 
facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based 
on an incorrect application of law or policy based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration , a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of 
a properly completed Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the 
prior adverse decision. Here, although the Petitioner's brief on motion addresses the Director's denial 
of the underlying petition, the subject of the prior decision was our summary dismissal of the 
Petitioner's appeal. As such, the issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner has either submitted new 
facts supported by documentary evidence sufficient to warrant reopening its appeal and/or established 
that our decision to summarily dismiss the appeal was based on an incorrect application ofUSCIS law 
or policy. 
A Prior AAO Decision 
The regulations provide that an officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal 
when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
At the time the Petitioner filed its appeal on November 14, 2019, it did not submit a statement identifying 
any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal, as instructed on the Form 
I-290B. The Petitioner also submitted no brief or evidence with Form I-290B despite indicating that 
a brief and/ or additional evidence was attached. When we reviewed the record of proceeding several 
months later, it did not include any supplement to the appeal. As a result, we summarily dismissed 
the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
B. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner has submitted a brief and new evidence in support of its motion to reopen, but it has 
not provided new facts or new evidence that would overcome our decision to summarily dismiss its 
appeal. Although the Petitioner claims that we "incorrectly denied the appeal," the brief and new 
evidence submitted on motion address the Director's decision denying the underlying petition on its 
merits. The Petitioner does not submit evidence to demonstrate that a supplement to the appeal had in 
fact been submitted prior to our summary dismissal. 
Absent new facts or evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner submitted the required statement in 
support of its appeal, it has not established with the current motion that the appeal should be reopened. 
Accordingly, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
C. Motion to Reconsider 
We will also dismiss the motion to reconsider, because the Petitioner has not shown that the summary 
dismissal of its appeal was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 
As noted, the Petitioner does not contest our summary dismissal decision or claim that it was based 
on an incorrect application oflaw or policy; its legal arguments on motion solely address the Director's 
2 
decision to deny the underlying petition. For the reasons discussed, our summary dismissal decision 
was consistent with USCIS policy and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
We will not consider the newly submitted motion brief discussing the merits of the case absent evidence 
that we summarily dismissed the appeal in error. The Petitioner has not provided such evidence or 
shown that the matter should be reopened or reconsidered. Accordingly, the combined motions will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3