dismissed EB-1C Case: Language Education

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandknmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOfiice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: AUG 1 6 2012 OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefindthedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All of thedocumentsrelated
to thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthatanyfurther
inquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or youhaveadditional
information that youwish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror amotion to reopen
in accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof $630.
The specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. Do not file any
motion directly with the AAO. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto
befiled within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Thenonimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby thedirector,NebraskaServiceCenter.
Thepetitionerappealedthe matterto theAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO), wherethe appealwas
dismissed.Thepetitionersubsequentlyfiled a motionto reopenwith AAO, whichwasdismissed.The
matterisnowbeforetheAAO onamotionto reopenandreconsider.Themotionwill bedismissed.
The petitioner is a Florida corporationthat offers language-basededucationprograms. It seeksto
employ the beneficiaryas its LanguageDirector/Owner.The petitioner endeavorsto classify the
beneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationand
NationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asamultinationalexecutiveor manager.
Thedirectordeniedthepetitionconcludingthat:(1)thepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiary
would be employedin the United Statesin a qualifying managerialor executivecapacity,and(2) the
petitionerfailedto establishthatit hasaqualifyingrelationshipwith theforeignentitythatemployedthe
beneficiaryabroad.
TheAAO dismissedthe appeal,notingthat in respondingto thedirector'sRFE,thepetitionerfailedto
providecrucialdocumentsthatarenecessaryto gaugetheavailabilityof a supportstaffandwhetherthe
beneficiarywould be relievedfrom havingto primarily performthe non-qualifying,daily operational
tasksof the business.The AAO concludedthat the petitionerfailed to establishthat the beneficiary
would be employedin a primarily managerialor executivecapacity. The AAO also foundthat the
petitionerfailed to submitsufficient evidenceto demonstratethat the petitionerandthe beneficiary's
employerabroadhavetherequiredcommonownershipandcontrol. Beyondthedecisionof thedirector,
the AAO alsofoundthat, insofarasthe regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(5)requiredthe petitionerto
establishthat thebeneficiarywill be "employed"asan "employeeof the United Statesoperation,the
petitionerhasfailedto do so. See,e.g.,NationwideMutual lns. Co.v. Darden,503U.S. 318,322-323
(1992); Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 449-450 (2003).
Additionally,theAAO foundthatthepetitionerfailedto showthatthebeneficiarywasemployedabroad
in aqualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacityper 8 C.F.R.§204.5(j)(3)(i)(B),or thatthepetitioneris
a"multinational"entity,asdefinedat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(2).
OnNovember2, 2010,theAAO dismissedthemotionto reopenpursuantto 8 CFR103.5(a)(4),which
states,in pertinentpart,that amotion that doesnot meetapplicablerequirementsshallbedismissed.
OnDecember2, 2010,thepetitionerfiled FormI-290B andstatesthatit is filing a motionto reopenand
a motionto reconsider,andabrief and/oradditionalevidenceisattached.
On motion,thepetitionerstatesthat "I considerthe lawswereinappropriatelyappliedin my case. After
talkingto experiencedpeoplein this fieldI assumeto havepresentedthenecessaryproofof my directand
tightrelationwith Tradfaxin ArgentinaandtheUnitedStates."
Thepetitionersubmittedaprintoutfromthewebsiteof FidescuandUniversityof Salamanca,"explaining
DIE (provingtheexclusivityin the USA)." Thepetitioneralsosubmitteda letterfromtheUnitedStates
InformationService,datedOctober27, 1997,writtento thebeneficiarythankinghim for hishelpasabus
driverduringthevisit of Bill Clintonto Argentina.Thepetitioneralsosubmitteda BusinessTax Receipt
for thepetitionerfor 2010- 2011. Thepetitioneralsosubmittedcertificatesof recognitiongrantedto the
Page3
petitionerandthebeneficiary.Thepetitioneralsosubmitteda letterdetailingthejob dutiesperformedby
thebeneficiarywhenhewasemployedby the foreignentity. Thepetitioner'sassertionsdo not satisfythe
requirementsof eitheramotionto reopenor amotionto reconsider.
Theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.103.5(a)(2)states,in pertinentpart:"A motionto reopenmuststatethe new
factsto be providedin the reopenedproceedingandbe supportedby affidavitsor otherdocumentary
evidence."Basedontheplainmeaningof "new,"anewfactis foundto beevidencethatwasnot available
andcouldnothavebeendiscoveredor presentedin thepreviousproceeding.'
A reviewof theevidencethatthepetitionersubmitsonmotionrevealsnofactthatcouldbeconsiderednew
under8 C.F.R.103.5(a)(2).Theevidencesubmittedwaseitherpreviouslyavailableandcouldhavebeen
discoveredor presentedin thepreviousproceeding,or it post-datesthepetition.
In addition,themotiondoesnot satisfytherequirementsof amotionto reconsider.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2)
states,in pertinentpart:
A motionto reconsidermuststatethereasonsforreconsiderationandbesupportedby any
pertinentprecedentdecisionsto establishthat the decisionwasbasedon an incorrect
applicationof law or Servicepolicy. A motionto reconsideradecisionon anapplication
or petitionmust,whenfiled, alsoestablishthatthe decisionwasincorrectbasedon the
evidenceof recordatthetimeof theinitialdecision.
Onmotion,thepetitionerdoesnot submitanydocumentthatwouldmeettherequirementsof a motion
to reconsider.A reviewof therecordandthe adversedecisionindicatesthatthedirectorandtheAAO
properlyappliedthestatuteandregulationsto thepetitioner'scase.Thepetitioner'sprimarycomplaintis
thatthedirectordeniedthepetition. Thepetitionerinsiststhat it providedsufficientdocumentationand
that the petitioner'sbusinessis extremelyimportant. However,both the director and the AAO's
decisionshaveclearlyoutlinedthe missinginformationanddocumentationthatthe petitionerfailed to
submit,andthat the recordhasinsufficientevidenceto establisheligibility for the benefitsought. As
previouslydiscussed,thepetitionerhasnot metits burdenof proof andthedenialwastheproperresult
undertheregulations.Accordingly,thepetitioner'sclaimiswithoutmerit.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenis onthepetitionerto establisheligibility forthebenefitsought.
SeeMatter ofBrantigan, 11I&N Dec.493(BIA 1966). Thepetitionermustproveby a preponderance
of evidencethatthebeneficiaryis fully qualified for thebenefitsought. Matter of Chawathe,25 I&N
Dec.369(AAO 2010);Matterof Martinez,21I&N Dec.1035,1036(BIA 1997);Matterof E-M-, 20
I&N Dec.77,79-80(Comm.1989);MatterofSooHoo, 11I&N Dec.151(BIA 1965).
The"preponderanceof theevidence"standardrequiresthattheevidencedemonstratethattheapplicant's
claimis "probablytrue," wherethedeterminationof "truth" is madebasedon the factualcircumstances
Theword"new"isdefinedas"1.havingexistedorbeenmadeforonlyashorttime. . . 3.Justdiscovered,found,or
learned<newevidence>. . . ." WEBSTER'SII NEWRIVERSIDEUNIVERSITYDICTIONARY792(1984)(emphasisin
original).
Page4
of eachindividual case. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80(Comm.1989). In evaluatingthe
evidence,Matter of E-M- alsostatedthat "[t]ruth is to be determinednot by the quantityof evidence
alonebut by its quality."Id. Thus,in adjudicatingtheapplicationpursuantto thepreponderanceof the
evidencestandard,thedirectormustexamineeachpieceof evidencefor relevance,probativevalue,and
credibility,bothindividuallyandwithin thecontextof thetotality of theevidence,to determinewhether
thefactto beprovenis probablytrue.
Evenif the directorhassomedoubtas to the truth, if the petitionersubmitsrelevant,probative,and
credibleevidencethatleadsthedirectorto believethattheclaimis "probablytrue" or "morelikely than
not," the applicantor petitionerhassatisfiedthe standardof proof. SeeUS. v. Cardozo-Fonseca,480
U.S. 421(1987)(defining"morelikely thannot" asa greaterthan50 percentprobabilityof something
occurring). If the directorcanarticulatea materialdoubt,it is appropriatefor the directorto either
requestadditionalevidenceor, if thatdoubtleadsthedirectorto believethatthe claimis probablynot
true,denytheapplicationor petition.
Here,thesubmittedevidencedoesnot meetthepreponderanceof theevidencestandard.As notedin the
director's decisionand the AAO's decisions,the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidenceto
establishthatthepetitionermeetstheregulatoryrequirementsto establisheligibility for approvalof the
petition.
Motionsfor thereopeningof immigrationproceedingsaredisfavoredfor thesamereasonsasarepetitions
for rehearingandmotionsfor a newtrial onthebasisof newlydiscoveredevidence.INS v. Doherty,502
U.S.314,323(1992)(citingINSv. Abudu,485U.S.94(1988)).A partyseekingto reopenaproceeding
bearsa "heavyburden."INSv. Abudu,485U.S.at 110. With thecurrentmotion,themovanthasnotmet
thatburden.
The burdenof proof in theseproceedingsrestssolelywith the petitioner. Section291 of the Act, 8
U.S.C.1361.Thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4)statesthat"[a] motion
that doesnot meet applicablerequirementsshall be dismissed." Accordingly, the motion will be
dismissed,andthepreviousdecisionsof thedirectorandtheAAO will notbedisturbed.
ORDER: Themotionis dismissed.