dismissed EB-1C Case: Operations Management

DATE:NOV 0 8 2012 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section 203(b )(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All 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, 
/L _----2 
Perry Rhewr" 
~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter 
is now before the AAO again on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner is a limited liability company organized in the State or florida. It seeks to employ 
the beneficiary as its director of operations. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the 
beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(C) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
On March 23, 2009, the director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner 
failed to establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. On 
January 10, 2011, the AAO dismissed the appeal, affirming the director's decision. 
On February 10, 2011, counsel for the petitioner filed the instant appeal. On the Form I-290B, 
counsel indicated that he was filing an appeal by selecting "B" in Part 2: "I am filing an appeal. 
My brief and/or evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 60 days." 1 
The petitioner'S appeal must be rejected. The AAO does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over 
AAO decisions. 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). See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1; 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(iv). Accordingly, the appeal is not properly before the AAO. 
Therefore, as the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(1). 
The AAO observes that the petitioner had the option of filing a motion to reopen or a motion to 
reconsider the AAO's most recent decision witllln 33 days of service pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §103.S. 
However, although 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 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). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) states, in pertinent part: "Requirements for motion to 
reopen. A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and 
be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence." 
I The AAO notes that counsel crossed out "30 days" and hand-wrote "60 days" in Part 2 of the appeal 
form. If an affected party desires more time to submit a brief, the party may submit a request directly to 
the AAO to show good cause for an extension. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii). The record does not contain 
such a request. By itself. the hand-written alteration of the appeal form will not suffice. 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3) states: 
Requirements for a motion to reconsider. A motion to reconsider must state the 
reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to 
establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or [USCISj 
policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when 
filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at 
the time of the initial decision. 
The instant appeal meets neither the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion to 
reconsider. Therefore, even if the instant appeal had been filed as a motion, it would not met the 
applicable requirements and would have been dismissed pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.