dismissed EB-1C Case: International Trade

(b)(6)
DATE: 
OCT 0 1 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securi ty 
U.S . Citizenship and Immi gration Ser vices 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO ) 
20 Massachu setts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Was hington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.C. § I 153(b)( I )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclo sed plea se find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Offic e (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-pr ecedent decision . The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establi sh agency 
policy through non-prec ede nt deci sions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied curre nt law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration , you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reope n, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B ) 
within 33 day s of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location , and other requirement s. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~l~ 
Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the preference visa petition. The petitioner 
appealed this denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) and the AAO dismissed the appeal. The 
petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the AAO's dismissal of the appeal. The AAO 
dismissed both motions and the matter is now before the AAO on a third motion to reconsider. The motion 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Maryland corporation engaged in the business of international trade. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its president. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C . § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
On November 19, 2009, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. On December 22, 2009, the 
petitioner appealed the denial disputing the director's findings. On December 12, 20 II, the AAO dismissed 
the appeal. The AAO provided a thorough analysis of the job description offered by prior coun sel and found 
that counsel's statements lacked credible and detailed information about the beneficiary's actual daily job 
duties. In addition, the AAO found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that: 
(1) the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the 
petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's prior foreign employer. On January 13, 2012 , 
the petitioner filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider the AAO's decision. On April l, 2013, the 
AAO dismissed the motion as neither counsel nor the petitioner cited any legal precedent or applicable law 
that would indicate an error on the part of the AAO in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. On April 30, 2013, 
the petitioner filed a second motion and marked the box at part two of the Form I-290B to indicate that a brief 
and/or additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. On June 28, 2013, the AAO 
dismissed the motion as the brief was not received within the allotted 30 days . 
On July 29 , 2013 , the petitioner filed the instant motion to reconsider the AAO's decision of June 28, 2013. 
The motion is based on its "memorandum" submitted in suppOlt of the previous motion, but was received by 
the AAO after the decision was sent to the petitioner. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3) states: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] policy. A motion 
to reconsider a deci sion on an application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the 
decision was incorr ect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) states, in pertinent part: "A motion that does not meet appiicable 
requirements shall be dismissed." 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
The instant motion consists of a "memorandum" submitted by counsel. First, counsel for the petitioner 
revisits the fact that the petitioner has had several L-lA petitions approved on behalf of the same beneficiary 
and states that "the users does have the burden to state why the previous petitions were erroneous and to 
explain inconsistent decisions." Counsel goes on to state that the AAO has not done this in its previous 
decisions . This assertion is not accurate . The AAO has thoroughly explained why the current petition does 
not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements and indicated that if the previous petitions were approved 
based on the same evidence presented in the instant petition, then those approvals were erroneous. USCIS is 
not required to assume the burden of searching through previously provided evidence submitted in support of 
other petitions to determine the approvability of the petition at hand in the present matter. The approval of a 
nonimmigrant petition in no way guarantees that users will approve an immigrant petition filed on behalf of 
the same beneficiary. USCIS denies many r-140 immigrant petitions after approving prior nonimmigrant 
r-129 L-1 petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 25; IKEA US v. US Dept. of 
Justice , 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D .D.C. 1999); Fedlin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava , 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E .D.N.Y. 
1989). 
Second, counsel for the petitioner addresses the beneficiary's role in a position of a primarily managerial 
capacity. Counsel indicates that the evidence presented establishes that the beneficiary meets the statutory 
requirements and the AAO failed to consider the evidence in the record. This assettion is also not accurate. 
In the present matter, counsel for the petitioner does not establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or fact. Here, counsel for the petitioner merely indicates that the beneficiary does meet the 
statutory requirements to be considered a manager; however, counsel for the petitioner does not establish that 
the AAO reached an incorrect conclusion in considering the evidence. In fact , in its decision , the AAO lists 
the evidence submitted by the petitioner 
and thoroughly discusses how that evidence fails to establish that the 
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Third, counsel for the petitioner makes a brief comment about the AAO's finding that the petition cannot be 
approved because the petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's 
foreign employer. On motion, counsel for the petitioner simply states that the AAO contradicts itself by 
stating in its December 12, 2011 dismissal that the "petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer are both 
owned by the beneficiary[,]" and in its April 1, 2013 dismissal, that "there is an adverse finding with regard to 
the lack of evidence showing a qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign 
employer." This comment is not accurate in that the AAO initially made this finding in its December 12, 
2011 decision and indicated that for this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
Furthermore, in its original December 12, 2011 decision, the AAO made an additional finding not addressed 
by counsel on motion: the lack of evidence to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Counsel for the petitioner does not address this issue on motion 
and for this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
The purpose of a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider is different from the purpose of an appeal. While 
the AAO conducts a comprehensive, de novo review of the entire record on appeal, a review in the case of a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
motion to reopen is strictly limited to an examination of any new facts, which must be supported by affidavits 
and documentary evidence. A motion for reconsideration must state the reasons for re-consideration and be 
supp01ted by pertinent precedent decisions establishing that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy. As such, counsel's assertions, as described above, do not provide a 
reason for reconsideration of the AAO's appellate decision. The AAO previously conducted a de novo 
review of the entire record of proceeding and has already addressed the arguments contained in counsel's 
brief. There is no regulatory or statutory provision that allows a petitioner more than one appellate decision 
per petition filed . In the present matter, an appellate decision was issued and the deficiencies were expressly 
stated. 
Rather, the AAO's review in this matter is limited to the narrow issue of whether the petitioner has presented 
and documented sufficient reasons, supported by pertinent precedent decisions, to warrant the reconsideration 
of the AAO's decision issued on June 28, 2013. In the current proceeding, counsel has not adequately 
addressed the grounds stated for dismissal of the motion. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. §103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) requires that motions be "[a]ccompanied by a 
statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any 
judicial proceeding." The petitioner's motion does not contain this statement. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ l03.5(a)(4) states that a motion which does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed. Therefore , 
because the instant motion does not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.P.R. 
§ I 03 .5(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must also be dismissed for this reason. 
Motions for the reopening or reconsideration of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as 
petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See INS v. Doherty, 
502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)) . A pmty seeking to reopen a proceeding 
bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the movant has not met that 
burden . The motion will be dismissed. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § ] 361. 
The petitioner has not met that burden. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not be 
reconsidered , and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.