dismissed EB-1C Case: Parking Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-P-USA CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 29, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMTNISTRA TIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a parking management company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
president and chief executive officer under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 203(b )(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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, Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the evidence of 
record did not establish that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity or that he was employed by the Petitioner's Mexican affiliate in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity prior to his entry to the United States as a nonimmigrant. The 
Petitioner filed an appeal, which we dismissed, finding that the Petitioner had not overcome the 
grounds for denial. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. Upon 
review, we will deny the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A. Overarching Requirement for Motions by a Petitioner 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits the authority of an officer of U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) to reopen a proceeding or reconsider a decision to instances where 
"proper cause" has been shown for such action. Thus, to merit reopening or reconsideration, not 
only must the submission meet the formal requirements for filing (such as, for instance, submission 
of a Form I-290B that is properly completed and signed, and accompanied by the correct fee), but 
also the petitioner must also show proper cause for granting the motion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03.5(a)( 4) requires that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be 
dismissed." 
Matter ofV-P-USA Corp. 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reopen 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2) states that a motion to reopen must "[(1)] state the new facts 
to be provided in the reopened proceeding and [(2)] be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence." 
This provision is supplemented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which states: 
"Motion to Reopen: The motion must state new facts and must be supported by affidavits and/or 
documentary evidence demonstrating eligibility at the time the underlying petition or application was 
filed." 1 
Further, the new facts must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened, with 
all the attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter 
ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-
40 (lOth Cir. 2013). 
C. Requirements for Motions to Reconsider 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(3), "Requirements for motion to reconsider," states: 
A motion to reconsider must [(1)] state the reasons for reconsideration and [(2)] be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a 
decision on an application or petition must [(3)], [(a)] when filed, also [(b)] establish 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. 
These provisions are augmented by the related instruction at Part 4 of the Form I-290B, which states: 
"Motion to Reconsider: The motion must be supported by citations to appropriate statutes, 
regulations, or precedent decisions and must establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy, and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at 
the time of decision." 
A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the prior decision based on the previous factual 
record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new facts. Compare 
8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(2). 
1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) states in pertinent part: 
Every benefit request or other document submitted to DHS must be executed and filed in accordance 
with the form instructions, notwithstanding any provision of 8 CFR chapter I to the contrary, such 
instructions are incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-P-USA Corp. 
II. DISCUSSION 
The submission constituting the combined motion consists of the following: (1) the Form I-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion; (2) a letter from the Beneficiary; (3) reference letters from several third 
parties; ( 4) an and ( 5) a copy of 
our earlier dismissal notice? 
A. Motion to Reopen 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner did not provide any relevant new facts in this motion. The 
reference letters (from individuals such as the mayor of Texas; the chairman of the board of 
the and the commanding officer of a 
attest to the Beneficiary's personal character and his volunteer service to the community. 
The letters do not address or overcome the specific grounds for dismissal of the appeal. The 
Petitioner also submitted the 2008, certificate from but did not 
explain its relevance or indicate how this document 
demonstrates eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the evidence submitted on motion would change the 
outcome of this case if the proceeding were reopened. "There is a strong public interest in bringing 
[a case] to a close as promptly as is consistent with the interest in giving the [parties] a fair 
opportunity to develop and present their respective cases." INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 107 (1988). 
Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as 
petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. 
Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to 
reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden" of proof. INS v. A budu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the 
current motion, the Petitioner has not met that burden. The motion to reopen will be denied. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by citations to 
pertinent statutes, regulations, and/or precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on 
an incorrect application of law or USCIS 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) (detailing the 
requirements for a motion to reconsider). 
In his letter submitted on motion, the Beneficiary does not directly address the grounds underlying 
our dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. Instead, the Beneficiary asserts that the petitioning company 
has faced adversity; lists his community activities (as documented in the letters submitted on 
motion); and describes his family's local activities. The letter explains why the Beneficiary and his 
2 Although the mailing receipt for the motion shows counsel 's address as the return address , the motion itself includes no 
brief or other evidence of counsel's active involvement in the case. 
3 
Matter ofV-P-USA Corp. 
family seek to remain in the United States, but it does not indicate how our decision was based on 
incorrect application of law or policy. 
Because the Petitioner has not identified any incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, or 
established that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record when we issued that 
decision, we must find that the Petitioner's filing does not meet the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider must be denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the combined motion will be denied 
and our previous decision will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofV-P-USA Corp., ID# 16277 (AAO Mar. 29, 2016) 
4