dismissed EB-1C Case: Liquor Store

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8935902 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 1, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executive s 
The Petitioner , an operator of a liquor store , seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
"executive " 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. § 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 a managerial or executive capacity . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish , 
as required , that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity . We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and a 
motion to reconsider that we also dismissed. Further , the Petitioner later filed an appeal that we 
rejected , indicating that we did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of our own decision . The matter 
is now before us again on a motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
On motion , the Petitioner contends that we erred in rejecting its previous appeal and in deciding that 
we did not have jurisdiction over it. The Petitioner asserts that it "properly filed" the I-290B , Notice 
of Appeal or Motion "timely and correctly ... per the online instructions." 
Upon review , we will dismiss the motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements of a motion and show proper cause for granting 
the motion . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l) . A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by 
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 and that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . 
A motion to reconsider must be supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or 
regulatory provision , or statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or 
Department of Homeland Security policy . We may grant a motion that meets these requirements and 
establishes eligibility for the benefit sought. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In order to meet the requirements of a motion to reopen the Petitioner must submit new facts supported 
by affidavits or documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). However, in support of this motion, 
the Petitioner provides no new affidavits or documentary evidence in support of its assertions. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
With respect to the motion to reconsider, the issue before us is whether our previous decision to reject 
the Petitioner's appeal was a correct application of law based on the evidence on the record at the time 
of that decision. 
In March 2019, we issued a decision dismissing the Petitioner's motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider. The cover page March 2019 decision clearly discussed the Petitioner's right to file motions 
and referred to the applicable regulations. In response, the Petitioner filed a Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion on April 25, 2019 and in Part 2 it selected 1.b. stating that it was "filing an appeal 
to the AAO" and that it would "submit [its] brief and/or additional evidence to the AAO within 30 
calendar days of filing the appeal." Subsequent to this, the Petitioner submitted a brief on May 23, 
2019. Since the Petitioner indicated on the aforementioned Form I-290B that it was filing the appeal, 
we rejected the appeal in October 2019, noting that the regulations gave us no jurisdiction over appeals 
of our own decisions. 
Now, on appeal, the Petitioner only vaguely indicates that we "erred" in this decision and that the 
April 2019 Form I-290B was filed "timely and correctly" and "per the online instructions." First, the 
Petitioner has not clearly articulated how our previous rejection was an incorrect application oflaw or 
policy based on the evidence on the record at the time of that decision, and for this reason alone, it has 
not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider. However, upon review, we do not agree that we 
erred in rejecting the Petitioner's previous appeal. The Petitioner clearly designated its intention to 
file an appeal on the April 2019 Form I-290B, and consistent with an appeal, it subsequently submitted 
a brief after the date of filing. This can be differentiated from motions, where all supporting briefs or 
additional evidence must be submitted at the time of filing the Form I-290B. Therefore, it appears 
clear that the Petitioner's intention was to file an appeal to one of our decisions, and as noted, we have 
no jurisdiction over such an appeal. As such, our previous decision to reject the Petitioner's appeal 
was consistent with law. 
In addition, in the brief submitted in support of its April 2019 appeal the Petitioner stated that the 
"original Petition should have been approved from the outset and the continued denials have 
prejudiced the petitioner." The Petitioner further added that "the foreign company is no longer 
operating their business." For first preference multinational executives or managers, a petitioner must 
have a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer at the time the petition is filed 
and must maintain that relationship until the petition is adjudicated. This interpretation is consistent 
with the purpose in creating this classification as a means of permanently transferring key managers 
and executives within a multinational organization. A beneficiary cannot be transferred to the United 
2 
States as a multinational executive or manager from a company that is no longer in the same 
multinational organization, whether that is because the former employer no longer exists in any form, 
or because it no longer shares the requisite common ownership and control with the petitioning U.S. 
employer. See Matter of F-M- Co., Adopted Decision 2020-01 (AAO May 5, 2020). The Petitioner's 
statement on motion that the Beneficiary's foreign employer "is no longer operating their business" 
indicates that it no longer maintains a qualifying relationship with his former foreign employer. As 
such, it appears that the Petitioner has acknowledged that it is no longer a qualifying organization, and 
in tum, that the Beneficiary is no longer eligible for the benefit sought. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision to reject its 
appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of that decision nor has it demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 
benefit sought as necessary to grant the motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen or to reconsider our 
previous decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3