dismissed EB-1C Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6552376 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 4, 2019 
Form I-140C, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a management consulting fmn, filed a Form I-140, Petition for Multinational Managers 
or Executives seeking to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a management consultant. Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity 
for at least one year during the three years preceding the Beneficiary's entry into the United States to 
work for the Petitioner. The Petitioner later filed an appeal that we dismissed on this basis . The matter 
is now before us again on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends there was a typographical error in the Beneficiary's Form G-325A, 
Biographic Information incorrectly indicating that her qualifying foreign employment ended in July 
2013, short of the required one year of foreign employment. The Petitioner submits additional 
evidence on motion and asserts that the Beneficiary's foreign employment ended after August 20, 
2013, and therefore, her foreign employment amounted to at least one year in the three years preceding 
her entry into the United States to work for the Petitioner. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss 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 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 for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
On motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence it asserts establishes that the Beneficiary worked 
for the foreign employer at least one year in the three years preceding her entry into the United States 
to work for the Petitioner on August 20, 2015. 
In denying the appeal, we pointed to two support letters the Petitioner provided with the petition and 
the Form G-325A, which reflected that the Beneficiary's foreign employment in a managerial capacity 
as a business analyst and senior business analyst was from October 2010 to July 2013. We noted that 
the record indicated that the Beneficiary took an educational leave of absence from the foreign 
employer to earn a Master's in Business Administration from 2013 to 2015 and that she entered the 
United States to work for the Petitioner on August 20, 2015. Therefore, we concluded that the 
evidence did not reflect that the Beneficiary had completed at least one year of foreign employment 
between August 20, 2012, and August 20, 2015, the three year period before her date of her entry into 
the United States to work for the Petitioner. We determined that the Petitioner had not plausibly 
demonstrated that the Petitioner's statements that her employment foreign ended in July 2013 were 
typographical errors as claimed. We stated that the Petitioner had not submitted contemporaneous 
documentary evidence to substantiate the actual end date of her foreign employment, such as payroll 
records, work product, or other such similar evidence. 
The Petitioner submits further evidence on motion which we will discuss in more detail below. The 
Petitioner asserts that this additional evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary's foreign employment 
was for at least one year in the three years preceding her entry into the United States as an L-lA 
nonimmigrant. The current issue before us is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated 
with additional evidence on motion that the Beneficiary was employed for at least one year in the three 
years preceding her entry to into the United States to work for the Petitioner on August 20, 2015. 
The Petitioner submits a confusing array of assertions and evidence related to the end date of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment. For instance, as we noted in our decision, the petition support 
letters and the G-325A submitted along with the petition indicated that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment ended in July 2013. The Petitioner also states that the supporting evidence included "a 
copy of the petitioner's internal employee record, which evidenced that [the Beneficiary] was 
employed in a managerial role as [a] Business Analyst ... and then subsequently [as a] Senior Business 
Analyst ... from October 22, 2010 to December 31, 2013." In addition, the Petitioner also emphasizes 
the date the Beneficiary entered the United States on an educational leave of absence, stating that "the 
[B]eneficiary's educational leave of absence commenced on August 27, 2013, not on July 1, 2013." 
It further indicated that"[ the Beneficiary's] qualifying employment abroad was from October 22, 2010 
to August 27, 2013. 1 Moreover, the Petitioner submits the Beneficiary's resume, a printout of her 
Linkedin page, and a copy of an L-lA nonimmigrant visa application from June 2015, all reflecting 
that her foreign employment ended in August 2013. Now, on motion, the Petitioner provides yet 
1 The Petitioner also correctly noted that the Beneficiary entered the United States on an F-1 student visa to pursue a 
master's degree in the United States on August 28, 2013. 
2 
another date, submitting an internal personnel record, printed on January 23, 2017, indicating that the 
beginning of the Beneficiary's educational leave of absence was on September 5, 2013. 
The Petitioner does not explain these differing dates; as such, this leaves uncertainty as to when her 
qualifying foreign employment actually ended. More importantly, in our previous dismissal of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we emphasized that it had not submitted contemporaneous documentary evidence 
to substantiate the actual end date of the Beneficiary's foreign employment, such as payroll records, 
work product, or other such contemporaneous personnel documentation. On motion, the Petitioner 
does not submit this critical evidence to remove the doubt cast by the conflicting end dates of her 
foreign employment reflected on the record. In fact, the Petitioner provides an internal printout that 
only sets forth yet another end date for her foreign employment, albeit after August 20, 2013. 
Regardless, we did not find this evidence sufficient to overcome the Petitioner's previous assertions 
in support of the petition which reflected that the end of the Beneficiary's foreign employment was in 
June 2013. The Petitioner still does not submit clear, objective, and contemporaneous documentation 
to overcome these discrepancies. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistencies and discrepancies 
in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient new facts supported by affidavits 
or other documentary evidence to overcome our previous dismissal. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner's assertions on motion are based on the new evidence it submits on appeal, which we have 
addressed above. The Petitioner does not indicate why our decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and why it 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). As we have already addressed the 
new evidence submitted by the Petitioner, we will not do so again pursuant to a motion to reconsider. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not set forth sufficient reasons to demonstrate that our previous dismissal 
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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsidering 
our prior decision. The motion to reopen and motion to reconsider will be dismissed for the above 
stated reasons. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3