dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 2 9 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FU-E: 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary : 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
'" INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case . A~l 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 . 
Thank you, 
·~~· 
~on Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
,. \ 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant petition. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) denied the petitioner's subsequent appeal. The petitioner has 
now filed a second appeal with the AAO. The AAO will reject the appeal. 
The petitioner filed an Immigrant Petition for an Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or 
Manager pursuant to Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C). The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to show that 
the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity and that the petitioner 
failed to establish that it had been and was currently doing business in the United States. The 
petitioner appealed that denial. The AAO upheld the director's decision and dismissed the appeal on 
June 8, 2012. The AAO further found thatthe petitionerfailed to establish that it had a qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer and that the beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity for at least one out of the three years prior to the 
filing of the petition. 
On July 5, 2012, the petitioner submitted a second appeal 
and requested 30 days to submit additional 
documentation. The director forwarded the matter to the AAO. No additional documentation was 
received and the record is now considered complete. 
The petitioner seeks appellate review of the AAO's own decision. There is no statutory or 
regulatory provision that permits the petitioner to file more than one appeal before the AAO with 
regard to the same petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(ii). The authority to adjudicate appeals is 
delegated to the AAO by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to 
the authority vested in him through the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. See DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); see also 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003). The AAO 
exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters described at 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (as in effect 
on February 28, 2003), with one exception- petitions for approval of schools under§ 214.3 are now 
the responsibility of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The AAO does not exercise 
appellate jurisdiction over its own decisions. Accordingly, the appeal is not properly within the 
AAO's jurisdiction. 
As noted in the AAO's cover letter, the petitioner had the option of filing a motion to reopen or a 
motion to reconsider the AAO's most recent decision within 33 days of service pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5 but neither the Form I-290B itself nor the petitioner's brief indicated an intent to file a 
motion. The petitioner clearly indicated on the Fotrn I-290B that the petitioner seeks to appeal the 
AAO's decision dated June 8, 2012. 
Assuming arguendo that the petitioner intended to file a motion to reopen or reconsider, the AAO 
notes that the current filing consists solely of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, on 
which the petitioner indicated that it would submit a brief and/or additional evidence within 30 
days. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii) states that a petitioner may be permitted 
additional time to submit a brief or additional evidence to the AAO in connection with an appeal, no 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
such provision applies to a motion to reopen or reconsider. The additional evidence must comprise 
the motion. See 8 C.F.R §§ 103.5(a)(2) and (3). As the petitioner submitted no brief, evidence or 
other argument in support of the Form I-290B, the petitioner's submission does not meet the 
requirements of either a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) and 
(4). 
Therefore, as the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. §103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.·