dismissed EB-1C Case: Mechanical Tools Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24993051 
Motion on Administrative Appeal Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN . 24, 2023 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner states that it is a distributor of mechanical tools and supplies. It seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as its general manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C) , 8 U.S .C. 
§ 1 l 53(b )(1 )(C). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds, concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish the following: 1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity for at least one year in the three year s preceding the date the petition was filed ; 
2) the Beneficiary's U.S. position would be in a managerial or executive capacity ; 3) the Petitioner 
had continuing ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage ; and 4) the Petitioner would be a bona 
fide employer of the Beneficiary. The Petitioner appealed the unfavorable decision, and we dismissed 
the appeal , concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. We determined that this identified basis for denial was dispositive 
of the Petitioner 's appeal and reserved its appellate argument s regarding the three remaining grounds. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S . 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of 
L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec . 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen 
and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofCha wathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review , we will dismiss the motion 
to reopen and 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 (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen to instances where the 
Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening, a petitioner must meet 
the formal filing requirements, such as submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee, and show proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot 
grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue at hand is whether the Petitioner has offered new relevant facts supported by credible 
evidence or made arguments establishing that our decision to dismiss the appeal was based on an 
incorrect application of the law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy given 
the evidence in the record at the time of our prior decision. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the 
prior adverse decision. As such, we will examine any new facts and supporting evidence that pertain 
to the dismissal of the appeal; we will also consider arguments establishing that our decision 
dismissing the appeal was based on a misapplication of law or USCIS policy. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
First, we tum to the Petitioner's motion to reopen in support of which the Petitioner asks that we 
"please find proof" that its employee (whom we assume to mean the Beneficiary) received monthly 
earnings of $2300 rather than annual earnings of $70,000. The Petitioner also referred to an employee 
payroll, job descriptions for "the compnay [sic] office manager," and five years of company tax 
returns. Because the Petitioner refers to these documents as "the attached," it thereby indicates that 
the motion is supported by submitted evidence. Despite the Petitioner's ambiguous reference 
however, the record shows no evidence attached to the instant motion. As such, the Petitioner's 
reference to a payroll document, an employee's job description, and company tax returns likely 
pertains to previously submitted, rather than new, evidence. Accordingly, since the Petitioner has 
offered no new facts supported by affidavits or other evidence, it has not met the requirements of a 
motion to reopen, and the motion must be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
Next, we tum to the Petitioner's motion to reconsider. In our prior decision, we focused on a single 
issue - the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States - as the basis for dismissing the 
appeal. In dismissing the appeal, we provided a comprehensive analysis in which we identified and 
discussed deficiencies concerning the Beneficiary's job duties and the Petitioner's staffing, and we 
explained how these factors resulted in our determination that the Petitioner did not meet the eligibility 
criteria. In order to determine that reconsideration of our decision is warranted, the Petitioner must 
2 
make a cogent argument explaining how we misapplied the law or users policy in our prior decision 
dismissing the appeal. 
Here, the Petitioner does not make such an argument. Instead, the Petitioner makes ambiguous 
references to "the attached" documents, even though no supplemental evidence has been received. 
And the Petitioner goes on to make further ambiguous references to "proof of employee income," a 
modified job offer letter, and a statement concerning "the employee coming to state to work under 
same employer ... as a company manager." Not only is there no evidence that any of the referenced 
documents were actually provided in support of this motion, but no argument has been made that such 
evidence demonstrates any legal or factual error in our prior decision. 
In sum, we provided a comprehensive analysis of the Petitioners submissions and explained precisely 
how we reached an adverse conclusion dismissing the appeal. On motion, the Petitioner does not 
explain how our decision was incorrect, nor does it establish that we misapplied the law or users 
policy in reaching that decision. As a result, the filing does not meet the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider and must be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3