dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-A-M-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 30, 2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a "management company," seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
CEO/president/general manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act section 203(b )(1 )(C), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1 )(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center approved the petition but later revoked that approval and 
addressed six separate grounds for the revocation. The Petitioner appealed the Director's decision. We 
summarily dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner did not submit a statement specifically 
identifYing an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of tact as a basis for the appeal. 
The matter is now before us again on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion. the 
Petitioner submits a brief that addresses the procedural history of the case and the merits of the 
Director's decision in support of its assertion that the Director improperly revoked the approval of 
the petition. 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal tiling requirements (such as 
submission of a properly completed Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion. with the correct fcc). 
and show proper cause tor granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(l ). 
A motion to reopen is based on tactual grounds and must ( 1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03.5(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). We may grant a motion that 
satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility tor the requested immigration benefit. 
Matter qfS-A-M-, LLC 
II. ANALYSIS 
At issue in this matter is whether we properly summarily dismissed the Petitioner"s appeal of the 
Director's revocation decision.' 
While the Petitioner's motion includes a brief addressing the merits of the Director's decision. it has 
not acknowledged, much less addressed our decision to summarily dismiss the Petitioner's appeal. As 
such, the Petitioner has not shown proper grounds for the reopening or reconsideration of our decision. 
A review of the record confirms that our summary dismissal of the appeal was warranted. The 
regulations state: "An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when 
the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
for the appeal." 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The Petitioner's appeal consisted of a Form I-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion. in which the 
Petitioner indicated that it had not submitted and would not submit a brief or additional evidence. 
While the Petitioner was not required to submit a brief or additional evidence, Part 4 of the Form 
I-2908 does require the filing party to provide a separate sheet of paper with a statement that 
specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion or law or fact in the decision being appealed. The 
Petitioner did not submit this required statement and did not supplement the appeal with a brief or 
evidence after filing it. We properly determined that the regulations required the summary dismissal 
of the appeal. 
The Petitioner has not provided new evidence on motion to establish that it had timely submitted the 
required statement, a briet: or additional evidence to establish a basis for its appeal. Nor has the 
Petitioner stated that our decision to summarily dismiss the appeal was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy. Accordingly, the combined motion will be denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the proceeding or 
proper cause for reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofS-A-M-. LLC, ID# 864347 (AAO Nov. 30, 2017) 
1 The official having jurisdiction in a motion is the official who made the latest decision in the proceeding. 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.5(a)(l )(ii). Therefore, for the purposes of this motion, the scope of our review is limited to the latest decision, 
which was our decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal. 
2