dismissed EB-1C Case: Real Estate Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 29, 2024 In Re: 29867791 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a real estate management business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its managing 
director under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational managers or executives. 
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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, in a 
managerial or executive capacity. We summarily dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now 
before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant motions that 
satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter ofCoelho, 
20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the 
outcome). 
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). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen the proceeding or reconsider 
the prior decision to instances where the filing party has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, 
to merit reopening or reconsideration , a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements 
(such as submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the 
correct fee), but also 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). 
The record reflects that the Director denied the petition on February 13, 2023. The Petitioner filed its 
appeal on March 17, 2023. The Petitioner's appeal did not specifically identify any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal, but the Petitioner checked a box on 
Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, stating, "My brief and/or additional evidence will be 
submitted to the AAO within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal." We summarily dismissed the 
appeal on July 19, 2023, stating, "To date the record does not contain any subsequent brief or 
additional evidence." 
On motion, the Petitioner states that it submitted a brief to the Vermont Service Center on April 17, 
2023 (within 30 days of filing its appeal) after receiving a receipt notice from that office indicating 
that it was processing the Form 1-290B. The Petitioner maintains that "there was never any notice that 
the appeal was processing elsewhere." The Petitioner submits a copy of the referenced receipt notice 
for its prior Form 1-290B, a copy of its brief dated April 14, 2023, and evidence that the brief was 
delivered to the Vermont Service Center on April 18, 2023. The Petitioner requests that the matter be 
adjudicated on its merits and "not due to some unknown and unfortunate mix-up in delivering the brief 
to the file." 
The regulations require an affected party to submit the complete appeal including any supporting brief 
as indicated in the applicable form instructions within 30 days after service of the decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(i). The record reflects that the Petitioner properly filed the prior Form 1-290B and filing 
fee at the location designated by the form instructions and indicated it would file a brief and/or 
evidence with the AAO within 30 days. 
The form instructions to the Form 1-290B instruct appellants who elect to submit a supplemental brief 
within 30 days of filing an appeal to mail the brief or additional evidence directly to the AAO, even if 
the appeal has not yet been transferred to the AAO. 1 In this instance, the Petitioner mailed its brief to 
the Vermont Service Center instead of sending it directly to the AAO. The Petitioner sent its brief to 
the wrong address which delayed its incorporation into the record. 
The record before us at the time we summarily dismissed the Petitioner's appeal in July 2023 did not 
contain a brief or other statement specifically identifying an erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact in the decision being appealed as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l )(v). Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established that our decision to summarily dismiss the appeal 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. 
While the new evidence submitted in support of this motion includes a copy of an appellate brief, the 
Petitioner has neither claimed nor presented evidence that the brief was properly submitted in 
accordance with the form instructions as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) and therefore has not 
provided proper cause for reopening the appeal. 
1 Every application form, benefit request, or other document must be submitted to USCIS and executed in accordance with 
the form instructions, which carry the weight ofregulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l). 
2 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established grounds to warrant reopening the 
appeal or reconsideration of our prior decision. Accordingly, the motions will be dismissed, and we 
will not address its claims that the Director denied the underlying petition in error. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3