dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

(b)(6)
DATE: 
.1UM \ \ ?.9\l 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W ., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITJON : Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(C) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any fmther inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made 
to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered , you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630 . The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F .R. § 1 03.5(a)(l )(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa pet1t10n was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen, which the director dismissed, finding that the petitioner 
failed to meet the motion requirements. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classity the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant 
to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
In a decision dated April 18, 2012, the director denied the petition based on three grounds of statutory 
ineligibility finding that the petitioner failed to establish that: (I) the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity; (2) the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and, (3) the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the 
beneficiary's employer abroad. 
On motion to reopen, filed on May 21, 2012, the petitioner addressed the deficiencies discussed in the denial 
by supplementing the record with evidence regarding the petitioner's ownership and additional information 
about the beneficiary's positions and job duties with the petitioner and the foreign employer. The petitioner 
also provided each entity's organizational chart accompanied by additional job descriptions to address the 
director's adverse findings with regard to the beneficiary's employment in a managerial or executive capacity 
with the foreign and U.S. entities. 
In a decision dated June 22, 2012, the director dismissed the petitioner's motion concluding that the petitioner 
failed to submit new evidence and thus did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
Through counsel, the petitioner now files an appeal asserting that the director abused his discretion by 
dismissing the previously filed motion. In the supplemental brief submitted in support ofthe appeal, counsel 
provides a synopsis of the petitioner's filing history, acknowledging that the director had denied prior 
petitions filed by the petitioner. Counsel asserts that the issue in the present matter is "the timeliness and 
relevance of the late submitted evidence" which the petitioner provided in support of the motion to reopen. 
The AAO finds that counsel's assertions are not persuasive and fail to establish that the director erred in his 
decision to dismiss the petitioner's motion to reopen. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) state, in 
pertinent part, that a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and 
be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. Based on the plain meaning of "new," a new fact is 
found to be evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented in the previous 
proceeding. 1 
As determined in the director's decision, there is no indication that the documents pertammg to the 
petitioner's ownership or the beneficiary's employment with the foreign or U.S. entities were previously 
unavailable. Therefore, such documents do not fit the requirements of a motion to reopen. Accordingly, the 
1 
The word "new" is defined as "I. having existed or been made for only a short time ... 3. Just discovered, 
found, or learned <new evidence> " WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGE DICTIONARY 753 (3rd Ed., 
2008)(emphasis in original). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
motion will be dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), which states, in pertinent part, that a 
motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
Furthermore, the AAO notes that the submitted evidence is not properly before the AAO for consideration on 
appeal. On January 12, 2012, the director issued a request for additional evidence asking specifically for 
proof of the original stock purchase to show that the required qualifying relationship exists. See section 
203(b)(l)(C) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (providing definitions of 
the terms "affiliate" and "subsidiary"). The director asked for wire transfers, bank deposits, cancelled checks, 
or other financial documents to show that the claimed parent or affiliated company contributed funds to 
purchase the stock. The petitioner failed to submit a full response but now attempts to submit documents on 
motion and on appeal. The documents include a bank statement, regarding the opening of the 
petitioner's checking account, and the withdrawal of $100,000 in cash from a personal certificate of deposit. 
Not only is this evidence not new, but the director specifically requested this evidence. Where, as here, a 
petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond 
to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of 
Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the 
petitioner had wanted the evidence to be considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to 
the director's request for evidence. ld. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the 
sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.