dismissed EB-1C Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 11, 2024 In Re: 33407737 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a metal and plastics machine parts designer and manufacturer, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its design and production 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 a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial, or that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. L The Director dismissed a subsequently filed motion 
to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive 
services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is corning to work in the United States for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer 
has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). 
1 The Petitioner does not assert that the Beneficiary has been or will be employed in an executive capacity. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior 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). 
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Petitioner is a metal and plastics machine parts designer and manufacturer and seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its design and production manager. In denying the petition, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in the 
United States in a managerial capacity or that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 
capacity. Specifically, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary 
supervised or controlled the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees or 
managed an essential function in either the United States or abroad. Additionally, the Director 
determined that the Beneficiary's position in both organizations was more akin to a first-line 
supervisor based on his supervision of non-managerial employees. 
The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. The Director dismissed 
the motions, determining that the Petitioner's submissions did not meet the motion requirements. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 
Where, as here, an appeal is filed in response to a director's unfavorable action on a motion, the scope 
of the appeal is limited to the director's decision on that motion. The regulatory provision at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(i) states: "The affected party must submit the complete appeal including any supporting 
brief as indicated in the applicable form instructions within 30 days after service of the decision." 
(Emphasis added). Thus, if the Petitioner wished to appeal the Director's decision to deny the appeal, it 
should have elected to file that appeal within 30 days of the Director's denial decision. Here, though, the 
Petitioner elected to file a combined motion instead, thus limiting the scope of the appeal to the merits of 
the Director's decision to dismiss the motions. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The only issue correctly before us on appeal is whether the immediate prior decision - that is, the 
Director's decision to dismiss the motion to reopen and motion to reconsider - was correctly decided. 
Our review and analysis in this matter, therefore, will focus on that determination. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserted that the Director's determination was erroneous because the 
Beneficiary supervised and controlled the work of professional employees both in the United States 
and abroad. In support of the motion, the Petitioner submitted the following evidence: 
l. Updated letter from its president; 
2. A copy of its organizational chart with position descriptions for the Beneficiary's 
subordinates (previously submitted); 
3. Educational credentials for the Beneficiary's U.S. subordinates; 
4. U.S. employee performance reviews; 
5. Updated letter from the foreign employer's human resources manager; and 
2 
6. Educational credentials for the Beneficiary's foreign subordinate employees. 
The Director dismissed the Petitioner's motion to reopen, determining that the Petitioner did not 
submit new facts that were supported by affidavits and/or documentary evidence demonstrating 
eligibility at the time of filing of the underlying petition. After review of the statements submitted on 
motion and the accompanying documentation, we concur with the Director's determination. 
First, we note that some of the evidence submitted on motion was previously submitted in support of the 
petition or in response to the Director's request for evidence, and the updated letters from the Petitioner 
and the foreign employer reiterate many of the assertions contained in their previously submitted letters. 
Regarding the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary qualifies as a manager based on his supervision 
and control of professional employees, we note that we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions 
require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor in determining whether 
a beneficiary manages professional employees. Cf 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining "profession" to mean 
"any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 101(a)(32) of the Act states that "[t]he term 
profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and 
teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." Therefore, we must 
focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held by subordinate 
employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead 
to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity. 
In dismissing the motion to reopen, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of educational 
credentials for the Beneficiary's U.S. and foreign subordinates but determined that the record did not 
establish eligibility, noting in particular that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that a bachelor's degree 
is actually necessary to perform the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinates. Upon review, we agree with 
the Director's determination. 
Although the Petitioner submitted evidence that some of the Beneficiary's U.S. subordinates hold 
bachelor's degrees, the Petitioner's stated educational requirements for the subordinate positions do not 
require a bachelor's degree as a minimum for entry into the positions. For example, the manufacturing 
control manager and the inspection and quality control manager positions require either a diploma and/or 
five years of experience, an associates degree, or a bachelor's degree, and the position of shipping and 
receiving supervisor only requires a diploma and five years of experience. The remaining indirect 
subordinate positions require either two years of experience or a combination of a high school degree and 
experience. Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide any evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree 
is required to perform the duties of any of the subordinate positions. Thus, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary, as a personnel manager, will primarily supervise and control the work of 
other professional employees in the United States. 
The Petitioner has also not shown that the Beneficiary's subordinates can be classified as managers or 
supervisors. We therefore find no error with the Director's determination that the record is insufficient 
to establish that the Beneficiary's U.S. subordinates were supervisors, managers, or professionals, or that 
he acted primarily as a personnel manager. 
3 
Regarding the Beneficiary's foreign subordinates, the Petitioner submitted the foreign entity's 
organizational chart from 2009, along with position descriptions and educational requirements, which 
were not accompanied by corroborating documentation that the foreign entity employed the named 
subordinates. In addition to noting this evidentiary deficiency, the Director observed that the Petitioner 
failed to resolve the inconsistency raised in the foreign employer's letter indicating that the Beneficiary 
oversaw non-supervisory employees. Absent additional, contemporaneous documentation to support the 
Petitioner's assertions, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not show that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary qualified as a manager by virtue of his 
supervision and control of professional employees was only offered for the first time in support of its 
motions. As noted by the Director, we generally do not consider claims for the first time on appeal or 
motion. See Matter ofJ-Y-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007). The Director correctly noted that 
a petitioner may not make material changes to a filing to make an apparently deficient petition confirm 
with requirements. Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
For the reasons set forth above, we find that the Director's decision dismissing the Petitioner's motion 
to reopen was correctly decided. 
The Director dismissed the motion to reconsider on the basis that it did not provide reasons for 
reconsideration that were supported by citations to appropriate statutes, regulations, or precedent 
decisions, and it did not show that the decision denying the petition was incorrect based on the 
evidence ofrecord at the time of the decision. Upon review of the Petitioner's submissions on motion, 
we agree that the motion did not satisfy the requirements of a motion to reconsider. The Petitioner did 
not specifically and sufficiently articulate why the Director's decision denying the petition was based 
on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, nor 
did the Petitioner cite to any relevant statute, regulation or relevant precedent decision that would 
support a contention that the Director's decision to deny the petition was based upon a misapplication 
of statute, regulation, or policy to the evidence of record before the Director at the time of the decision 
to deny the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner makes general assertions that the Director erred by not properly analyzing 
the evidence submitted but does not sufficiently articulate what evidence was not properly analyzed 
or specifically indicate how the Director incorrectly applied law or policy in the prior decision. We 
therefore find that the Director's decision dismissing the Petitioner's motion to reconsider was 
correctly decided. 
IV. L-lA NONIMMIGRANT STATUS 
We acknowledge that the Beneficiary has received L-lA status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrant managers or executives. Although USCIS has approved at least one L-1 A 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition, which is adjudicated based on a different standard, 
statute, regulation, and case law. Many immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Sun lift Int 'l v. Mayorkas, 20-cv-08869-JCS, 2021 WL 3111627 
(N.D. Cal. Jul. 22, 2021); Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA 
4 
US v. US. Dep 't ofJustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41, 42 (2d Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority 
over the USCIS service centers, the offices adjudicating nonimmigrant visa petitions, is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 
98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 15, 2000).2 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Director properly determined that the Petitioner's combined motions do not meet the requirements 
under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) and (3). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See also generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.4(D), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
5