dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

identifying data deleted to 
t clearly unwarranted preven . invasion of personal privacy 
pUBLIC copy 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529·2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
OCT 06 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 IS3(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF -REPRESENTED 
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 further 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. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
- I 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) where the appeal was dismissed. 
The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a limited liability company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify 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)(1)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition based on three independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; 2) the 
petitioner failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; and 
3) the petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage. 
The petitioner appealed the denial disputing the director's findings. The AAO withdrew the third ground as a 
basis for denial and dismissed the appeal, upholding the two remaining grounds of ineligibility and adding 
one finding beyond the decision of the director. With regard to the two findings issued in the original denial, 
the AAO determined that the petitioner failed to provide detailed job descriptions of the beneficiary's foreign 
and proposed employment and thus did not establish that the beneficiary had been and would be performing 
primarily managerial or executive duties. The AAO also determined that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary would be an employee of the petitioning entity. 
On motion, the petitioner provides a brief which offers additional information regarding the beneficiary's 
position abroad and his position with the U.S. entity. With regard to the additional ground of ineligibility that 
the AAO cited in its earlier decision, the petitioner states that the beneficiary acts pursuant to the direction of 
the foreign entity's board of directors. The petitioner states that the business is growing. 
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.! 
In the instant case, the petitioner's motion is based on documentation and supplemental information that could 
have been provided either on appeal or at any time since the filing of the petition. As such, the AAO cannot 
conclude that any ofthe submissions that are currently being offered are new. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) state, in pertinent part: 
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 
I The word "new" is defined as "1. having existed or been made for only a short time ... 3. Just discovered, 
found, or learned <new evidence> "WEBSTER'S II NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 792 
(1984)(emphasis in original). 
· , 
-Page 3 
application of law or USCIS policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or 
petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 
In the instant case, the petitioner does not cite any legal precedent or applicable law that would indicate an 
error on the part of the AAO in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(4), which states, in pertinent part, that a motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
Furthermore, the motion shall be dismissed for failing to meet an applicable requirement. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.S(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." In this matter, 
the motion does not contain the statement required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C). The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(4) states that a motion which does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed. 
Therefore, because the instant motion did not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must also be dismissed for this reason. 
As a final note, the proper filing of a motion to reopen and/or reconsider does not stay the AAO's prior 
decision to dismiss an appeal or extend a beneficiary's previously set departure date. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(iv). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § l361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.