dismissed EB-1C Case: Remodeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-U-G- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 17, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in kitchen and bath remodeling and closet installation, seeks to 
pe1manently employ the Beneficiary as its 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. § l 153(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal, 
which we dismissed, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 1 The Petitioner 
subsequently filed a motion to reconsider and two motions to reopen, all of which we denied because they 
did not meet the respective requirements for such motions. 
The matter is now before us again on a third motion to reopen. On motion, the Petitioner provides a 
brief, re-submits evidence that it provided previously, and asserts that our prior decisions were in error. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion to reopen. 
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). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for 
the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner's latest motion includes copies of several previously submitted items ( an organizational 
chart, an employment verification letter, and various briefs), but no new evidence. The Petitioner also 
1 The Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad or would be employed in the United States in an 
executive capacity. 
Matter ofC-U-G- Corp. 
submits a new 10-page brief, but this brief does not allege any new facts. As such, the Petitioner has 
not identified proper cause to reopen the proceeding. 
The Petitioner asserts that our prior decisions contained various enors. Such allegations of enor are 
properly addressed in a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(3). The filing now before us is a 
motion to reopen, not a motion to reconsider. As we stated in our last decision, "the purpose of the 
motion to reopen is to allow the Petitioner to submit new facts that overcome the grounds for 
ineligibility." We also advised the Petitioner that"[ r ]easserting previously stated facts or resubmitting 
previously provided evidence does not constitute 'new facts."' Nevertheless, the Petitioner's latest 
motion is broadly similar to prior filings, relying on general allegations of adjudicative enor but 
introducing no new evidence and no new information into the record. 
The Petitioner has filed four motions in this proceeding, each time seeking what amounts to a new 
adjudication of the underlying petition. The regulations afford the Petitioner a limited period of time 
(33 days) to contest the denial of the petition, by filing either an appeal or a motion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.3(a)(2)(i), 103.S(a)(l), 103.8(b). Here, that period expired on September 12, 2016. Filing a 
motion, or multiple motions, does not trigger a complete review of the record and readjudication of 
the petition, and does not extend the time available to contest the denial of the petition. 
We issued our most recent prior decision in October 2018, with regard to a motion to reopen that the 
Petitioner filed in May 2018. In order for us to review the record prior to October 2018, the Petitioner 
must establish that our October 2018 decision was in error. But the Petitioner's latest motion does not 
discuss the substance of our October 2018 decision at all. In that decision, we found that the 
Petitioner's May 2018 motion to reopen did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen, and 
therefore the regulations compelled the denial of that motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). In its latest 
motion, the Petitioner contends that our prior decision "failed to take into consideration ... the extreme 
need the petitioner has to permanently employ an experienced manager." The Petitioner does not 
explain how this assertion satisfied the defined requirements of a motion to reopen. 
In its latest motion, the Petitioner does not demonstrate or claim that the May 2018 motion contained 
new facts, supported by evidence or affidavits. Instead, the brief on motion argues that the underlying 
petition should have been approved. Therefore, even if the Petitioner had filed its latest motion as a 
motion to reconsider rather than a motion to reopen, the Petitioner would not have prevailed because 
the Petitioner does not assert or establish enor in our prior decision. 
The Petitioner's latest motion repeats prior assertions but introduces no new facts. Therefore, we 
cannot grant the motion to reopen. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening and has not 
overcome the grounds for the denial of its previous motion. The motion to reopen will be denied for 
the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
2 
Matter ofC-U-G- Corp. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of C-U-G- Corp., ID# 3356794 (AAO May 17, 2019) 
3