dismissed EB-1C Case: Management Consulting

. U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-&C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 23, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION.· 
\· 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a management consulting firm, seeks. to permanently employ the Beneficiary as an 
engagement manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives 
or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(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 Nebraska Service Center denied· the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary had at least one year of quaiifying employment abroad 
during the three years preceding her entry as a nonimmigrant. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider.· 
On motion; the Petitioner submits additional. evid,ence and asserts that the Beneficiary had at least 
one year of qualifying employment abroad during the three years preceding her entry as a 
nonimmigrant. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen is based on factual 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. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (I) state the reasons for 
reconsideration; (2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law o( policy;· and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may 
grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates. eligibility for the requested 
immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue in this matter is ~hether the Petitioner has s~tisfied the motion requirements to overcome our 
. prior appellate decision. finding that the Beneficiary does not have the requisite qualifying employment 
Matter of M-&C-. Inc. 
abroad and is therefore not eligible for the benefit sought. Because the Beneficiary was already in the 
United States working for the foreign employer or its subsidiary or at1iliate at the time the Form 1-
140 was filed, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B) requires the Petitioner to submit a 
statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates 
that, in the three years preceding entry as a nonimmigrant, the Beneficiary was employed by the 
entity abroad for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner states new facts supported by documentary evidence; however, 
for the reasons below, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for the requested immigration 
benefit.. The Petitioner initially provided the 'following chronology for the Beneficiary's 
employment: 
June 2009 
February 2010 
June 2011 
May 2013 
May 2015 
The Petitioner's foreign affiliate hired the Beneficiary as a 
knowledge analyst. 
The Petitioner's foreign affiliate promoted the Beneficiary to a 
managerial position as a management consultant. 
The Beneficiary entered . the United States as an L-1 B 
nonimmigrant to work for the Petitioner as a management 
consultant. 
The Beneficiary took academic leave to pursue her MBA degree as 
an F-1 nonimmigrant student. 
The Beneficiary re-entered the United States as an L-1 A 
nonimmigrant to resume employment with the Petitioner as a 
management consultant. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad for 
at least one year out of the three years before she entered the United States as an L-1 A nonimmigrant 
in 2015. On appeal, the Petitioner stated that the Director erred by considering the Beneficiary's 
entry in L-lA status in 2015, instead of her prior entry in 2011. The Petitioner asserted that, because 
the Beneficiary entered the United States in 201 l to work for the Petitioner as an L,.lB 
nonimmigrant, she accrued qualifying managerial employment abroad between February 2010 and 
June 2011. On appeal, we found that the record did not contain sufficient information and evidence 
to demonstrate the Beneficiary's possession of the required qualifying employment abroad. 
Specifically Je noted that the Beneficiary's U.S. employment from 2011 to 2013 did not interrupt 
the Beneficiary's qualifying employment abroad, because the Beneficiary entered the United States 
· as a nonimmigra11t to work for a U.S. employer related to her foreign employer. However, we stated 
. that the issue was the time that .the Beneficiary spent in the United States not working for the 
Petitioner b~tweery May 2013 and May 2015 .. In accordance with Matter of S-P-, Inc., Adopted 
· Decision 2018-01 (AAO Mar. 19, 2018), if the Beneficiary's qualifying employment was interrupted 
for more than two years, then that interruption is disqualifying, whether that interruption occurred 
while the beneficiary was abroad or in the United States. As 'the Petitioner did not provide exact 
Matter of M-&Cc, Inc. 
dates, corroborated by verifiable evidence, we found the record did not establish the length of the 
I 
interruption in the Beneficiary's qualifying employment 
' We also noted discrepancies in the submitted documentation concerning her claimed initial entry to 
the United States in June 2011 and indicated that the Beneficiary's frequent trips to the United States 
during her claimed employment abroad, while not inherently interruptive, could not be counted 
toward the required year of employment abroad. We therefore dismissed the appeal because the 
Petitioner did not establish the length of the interruption in the Beneficiary's qualifying employment 
or the duration of her tiine spent in the United States during her claimed qualifying employn:ient 
abroad. 
On motion, the Petitioner provides the Beneficiary's personnel records; her Form I-94 travel record 
from May 30, 2013, onward; and copies of her passport pages. The documents establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary's interruption in employment between 2013 and 
2015 was less than two years. However, the documents do not establish by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the Beneficiary was employed outside the United States for at least one year in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 1 
The Petitioner asserts on motion that the Beneficiary's qualifying managerial employment abroad 
occmTed between February 2010 and June 2011. However, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
records show that the Beneficiary ~as in the United States for several months during that time.· 
Although the Petitioner submits copies of the Beneficiary's passport pages, they do not clearly establish 
that she was employed outside of the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity between February 2010 and June 2011. 
For example, stamps in the Beneficiary's passport show that she·entered the United States on February 
20, 2010; on June 14, 2010; on October 24, 2010; on January 9, 2011; on May 2, 201 l; on May 12, 
201 1; on May 31, 2011; and on June 6, 2011. However, the combined duration of these stays in the 
United States is not documented in the record. The Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of 
the evidence that in the three years preceding her entry as a nonimmigrant, the Beneficiary was 
employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. The motion 
to reopen will be denied. 
r 
B, Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner's motion does not 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). ·'Further, it is not supported by a pertinent 
1 The Petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-376 (AAO 2010). 
. I 
3 
Matter of M-&C-, Inc. 
. \ 
precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of USCIS or OHS 
policy, The Petitioner has not shown proper causeJor us to reconsider the proceeding and, thus, the 
motion to reconsider will be denied.· · d · 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that in the three years preceding her entry as a nonimmigrant, the 
Beneficiary was employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of M-&C-, Inc. ID# 1982224 (AAO Jan. 23, 2019) 
4