dismissed EB-1C Case: International Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23092627 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 07, 2022 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Manager or Executive 
The Petitioner is engaged in international trade and seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as 
its president 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that (1) the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity in the United 
States, and (2) that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity prior to his transfer 
to the United States as a nonimmigrant. The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, 
which the Director dismissed based on a determination that it did not meet the regulatory filing 
requirements. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence . Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review 
the questions in this matter de novo. See Matter a/Christa's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 
2015). Upon de novo review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
Our review on appeal is generally limited to the basis for the immediately prior adverse decision. 
Accordingly, the sole issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established that the Director 
improperly dismissed its motion to reconsider. 
A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
policy, and (2) establish that the previous decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the initial decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(l)(i) limits the reviewing official's authority to reopen or reconsider to instances where the 
affected party has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit 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. USCIS cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner timely filed a motion to reconsider on Form I-290B on June 10, 
2021. The Petitioner's submission included the completed Form I-290B, the required filing fee, and 
a one-page cover letter indicating that other documents, including a brief in support of the motion, 
were enclosed. The record does not, however, include the referenced brief or enclosures, nor does it 
contain any other statement from the Petitioner identifying the basis for the motion to reconsider. 
Accordingly, the Director dismissed the motion, concluding that the Petitioner did not state the reasons 
for reconsideration and establish that the denial of the petition was based on an incorrect application 
oflaw or policy, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which it contends that the Director's April 2021 decision 
denying the underlying immigrant petition was based on erroneous conclusions of fact and law. The 
Petitioner addresses the issues discussed in that decision, maintains that it met its burden to establish 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in an executive 
capacity, and emphasizes that he is otherwise eligible for classification as a multinational executive 
under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner does not, however, address the Director's decision dated September 15, 2021, which is 
the decision before us on appeal. As such, the Petitioner has neither claimed nor demonstrated that 
the Director dismissed the motion to reconsider in error, based on the evidence in the record at the 
time of that decision. As noted above, the record supports the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner's motion to reconsider, which contained no brief or other statement from the Petitioner, did 
not meet the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements must be dismissed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The Director properly determined that the Petitioner's motion to reconsider did not meet the applicable 
requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2