dismissed EB-1C Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 21. 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, which provides information technology services, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(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 in May 2018, concluding that the 
record did not establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which the 
Director denied in August 2018 because the filing did not meet the requirements of such a motion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and evidence. 
We will dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner did not appeal the May 2018 denial order. Rather, the Petitioner filed a motion with 
the Nebraska Service Center, and then appealed the Director's subsequent finding that the motion did 
not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. Therefore, the merits of the May 2018 denial 
decision, and of the underlying petition, are not before us. The only issue before us is whether the 
Director properly found that the motion did not meet applicable requirements. 
We note that the Petitioner submitted several new exhibits on motion, but the purpose of a motion to 
reconsider is not to introduce new facts or evidence into the record. Rather, a motion to reconsider 
must show errors of law or policy, and establish that the prior decision was incorrect based on the 
record as it was at the time of that decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Also on motion, the Petitioner submitted new job descriptions for the Beneficiary and his subordinates. 
These job descriptions are different from the versions submitted previously. The Petitioner's 
submission of new or revised job descriptions cannot show that the Director's initial decision was in 
error, because those descriptions were not part of the record when the Director made that decision. 
Matter ofB-Inc 
In the August 2018 decision, the Director found that the Petitioner's filing did not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief which, apart from an introductory paragraph acknowledging 
the Director's August 2018 decision, is almost identical to the brief submitted with the May 2018 
motion. The Petitioner also resubmits exhibits from the motion on appeal. 
The appellate brief does not specifically identify any erroneous conclusions of law or statements of 
fact in the Director's August 2018 decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). (The general 
statement "we disagree with this decision" does not meet this threshold.) Instead, the Petitioner 
revisits and contests the earlier decision from May 2018, which denied the underlying petition. The 
deadline to appeal that decision, however, elapsed in early June 2018. The filing of a motion did not 
suspend or reset the appeal period. The Petitioner has not established that the Director erred in denying 
the motion in August 2018, and therefore we will not consider the merits of the underlying petition or 
the May 2018 denial decision. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's May 2018 filing did 
not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. In that filing, the Petitioner sought to introduce 
new and revised information into the record, which is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofB-Inc, ID# 2607979 (AAO Mar. 21, 2019) 
2