dismissed EB-1C Case: Remodeling And Construction

MATTER OF C-U-G- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 15, 2018 
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 
permanently 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. § 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 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 We denied the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reconsider, and most recently, denied a 
motion to reopen, after determining that the new facts presented on motion did not overcome our prior 
decision or establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
The matter is now before us again on a 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 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such 
as, for instance, 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l). 
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. 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In support of its motion to reopen, the Petitioner provides a brief in which it asserts that this petition 
was denied in error and requests "de novo reconsideration." However, our adjudication of a motion 
to reopen does not require a de novo review of the record, as we already conducted such a review 
when adjudicating the Petitioner's appeal. Nor does this adjudication require reconsideration of our 
prior decisions based on the Petitioner's general claim that such decisions were made in error; the 
instant motion is a motion to reopen, rather than a motion to reconsider. 
As noted, the purpose of the motion to reopen is to allow the Petitioner to submit new facts that 
overcome the grounds for ineligibility. The Petitioner states that "[f]or new consideration, the 
Petitioner is submitting evidence of eligibility for the benefit sought and that the beneficiary's duties 
with the Brazilian associate were primarily managerial in nature." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a "new" fact, nor does it 
mirror the Board of Immigration Appeals' (the Board) definition of "new" at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1003.23(b)(3) (stating that a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the evidence "was not 
available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing"). Unlike the Board 
regulation, we do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, we interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue(s) 
raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the 
original petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence 
does not constitute "new facts." 
The Petitioner's brief reiterates assertions regarding the Beneficiary's U.S. employment which it 
already made in its three prior briefs and elsewhere in the record, and does not provide any new facts 
or documentary evidence pertaining to its claim that it will employ the Beneficiary in the United 
States in a managerial capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. We will not revisit 
this previously-submitted information and therefore find that the Petitioner has not overcome our 
finding with respect to the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment. 
Similarly, the brief does not provide any new facts regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad. 
The only supporting documents submitted with this motion are a declaration from the foreign employer 
and the foreign entity's organizational chart, both of which were submitted previously and addressed in 
our prior decisions. We cannot grant the motion to reopen as it does not present new facts. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofC-U-G- Corp., ID# 1745513 (AAO Oct. 15, 2018) 
2