dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
AUG152012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Thisis thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.Pleasenotethatall documentshave
beenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasealsonotethatanyfurtherinquirymustbe
madeto thatoffice.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscas.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Thepreferencevisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,TexasServiceCenter,and
a subsequentappealwasdismissedby theAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO). Thematteris now
beforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on a motionto reconsiderandamotionto reopen.
Themotionwill berejectedasimproperlyfiled.
TherecordindicatesthattheFormI-l 290BwassubmittedonFebruary14,2011. Counselindicated
that it wasa motionto reopenanda motionto reconsider.On March 8, 2011,the TexasService
Centersentanoticeto thepetitionerandcounselstatingthataproperlyexecutedFormG-28wasnot
submitted,andrequestedthat a properlyexecutedG-28be submittedto the AAO. The letter also
informedthepetitionerandcounsel,thatfailureto submitaproperlyexecutedFormG-28mayresult
in the motion beingconsideredimproperlyfiled. On March 22, 2011,counselsubmitteda new
FormG-28to AAO; however,thenewFormG-28is still not properlyexecutedasonceagainit was
not signedby the petitioner. In both FormsG-28filed with themotion,thepetitionerdid not sign
theformasrequiredby theregulations.
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 292.4(a)statesthatanappearancemustbefiled ontheappropriateform
by the attorneyor accreditedrepresentativeappearingin eachcase. Theregulationalsostatesthat
the "form must be properly completedand signedby the petitioner,applicant,or respondentto
authorizerepresentationin order for the appearanceto be recognizedby DHS." In addition,the
regulationstatesthata new form mustbe filed with an appealwith the AAO. As the motionwas
improperlyfiled,themotionmustberejected.
In addition,evenif the Form G-28wasproperlyexecuted.,counsel'sassertionsdo not satisfythe
requirementsof eitheramotionto reopenor amotionto reconsider.
Theregulationsat8 C.F.R.103.5(a)(2)states,in pertinentpart:"A motionto reopenmuststatethenew
factsto beprovidedin thereopenedproceedingandbe supportedby affidavitsor otherdocumentary
evidence."
Basedon the plain meaningof "new," a new fact is foundto be evidencethat was not availableand
couldnothavebeendiscoveredor presentedin thepreviousproceeding.1
A reviewof theevidencethatthepetitionersubmitsonmotionrevealsno factthatcouldbeconsidered
newunder8 C.F.R.103.5(a)(2).Theevidencesubmittedwaspreviouslyavailableandcouldhavebeen
discoveredor presentedin thepreviousproceeding.
In addition,the motiondoesnot satisfythe requirementsof a motionto reconsider. 8 C.F.R. §
103.5(a)(2)states,in pertinentpart:
Theword"new"is definedas"1. havingexistedor beenmadefor onlya shorttime. . . 3.Justdiscovered,
found, or learned <new evidence> . . . ." WEBSTER'SII NEW RIVERSIDEUNIVERSITYDICTIONARY 792
(1984)(emphasisinoriginal).
Page3
A motionto reconsidermuststatethereasonsforreconsiderationandbesupportedby
any pertinentprecedentdecisionsto establishthat the decisionwas basedon an
incorrectapplicationof lawor Servicepolicy. A motionto reconsideradecisiononan
applicationor petitionmust,whenfiled,alsoestablishthatthedecisionwasincorrect
basedontheevidenceofrecordatthetimeof theinitialdecision.
Onmotion,counseldoesnot submitanydocumentthatwouldmeettherequirementsof a motionto
reconsider.A reviewof therecordandtheadversedecisionindicatesthatthedirectorandtheAAO
properly applied the statuteand regulationsto the petitioner'scase. The petitioner'sprimary
complaintis that the AAO dismissedthe appeal. The petitionerdoesnot establishthat the AAO
utilizedan incorrectapplicationof law or Servicepolicy. Instead,thepetitionerstateson the Form
I-1290Bthat "we haveprovidedadditionalevidenceto provethatthe beneficiaryis employedin a
managerialand/orexecutiveposition. Themotionbrief re-submitsthe dutiesfiled previouslyand
resubmitstheevidenceprovidedwith thepetitionandthepreviousappeal. As previouslydiscussed,
the petitionerhas not met its burdenof proof and the denial was the proper result underthe
regulation.Accordingly,thepetitioner'sclaimis withoutmerit.
Motionsfor the reopeningof immigrationproceedingsaredisfavoredfor the samereasonsas are
petitionsfor rehearingandmotionsfor a newtrial onthe basisof newlydiscoveredevidence.INS v.
Doherty,502U.S.314,323(1992)(citingINS v. Abudu,485U.S.94 (1988)). A partyseekingto
reopenaproceedingbearsa "heavyburden."INSv. Abudu,485U.S.at 110. With thecurrentmotion,
themovanthasnotmetthatburden.
In visa petition proceedings,the burdenis on the petitionerto establisheligibility for the benefit
sought. SeeMatter of Brantigan,11 I&N Dec.493 (BIA 1966). Thepetitionermustproveby a
preponderanceof evidencethat the beneficiaryis fully qualified for the benefitsought. Matter of
Chawathe,25 I&N Dec.369 (AAO 2010);Matterof Martinez,21 I&N Dec. 1035,1036(BIA
1997);Matterof E-M-,20I&N Dec.77,79-80(Comm.1989);MatterofSooHoo,11I&N Dec.151
(BIA 1965).
ORDER: Themotion is rejected.