dismissed EB-1C Case: Remodeling And Installation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-U-G- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 30,2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, 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. 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 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.' We denied the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reconsider finding that the Petitioner had 
not established that our dismissal of its appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. The Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
states that it is "now offering material evidence that overcome[ s] the dismissal of appeal and denial 
of Motion to Reconsider.'· 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
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. § 103.5(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 had been 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 contends that we 
incorrectly dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and denied its prior motion to reconsider. The 
Petitioner indicates that it is "now offering material evidence" to overcome our previous decision, 
but the only evidence submitted with the Petitioner's brief is an English translation of an 
organizational chart for the Beneficiary's foreign employer, which it submitted previously in 
Portuguese without a translation. The Petitioner's brief does not contain new facts and is not 
supported by any additional documentary evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(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 the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. position description, but it 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 10l(a)(44)(A) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A). 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. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial capacity, we noted that the Petitioner had submitted several 
different position descriptions for the Beneficiary's foreign position which were inconsistent with 
one another. We further noted that each individual description was ambiguous and did not 
sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary primarily performed duties consistent with the definition of 
managerial capacity. The Petitioner has not provided new facts on motion to resolve the ambiguities 
in the record regarding the nature of the Beneficiary's former job duties, but rather has repeated one 
of the position descriptions provided previously and already discussed in our decision dismissing the 
appeal. 
We also reviewed the available evidence regarding the foreign company's organizational structure, 
the employees that comprise that structure, their respective job duties, and the likelihood that the 
foreign company had personnel to relieve the Beneficiary from having to allocate a significant 
portion of his time to non-managerial duties. However, we noted that our review of the foreign 
entity's structure was restricted, as the evidence in the record was limited to an untranslated 
organizational chart. 
2 
Matter ofC-U-G- Corp. 
As noted, the only new documentary evidence submitted in support of this motion to reopen is an 
English translation of the previously-submitted foreign entity organizational chart. The chart shows 
that the Beneficiary, as the "operational manager" supervised "representatives," "points of 
purchase," and "logistics." The chart does not identify any subordinate employees, contractors, or 
other staff by name or indicate the number or types of workers the Beneficiary supervised or their 
job duties. This chart, by itself~ is insufficient to establish how the foreign entity supported the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity and does not assist in clarifying the nature of his actual day-to­
day duties with the foreign entity. Therefore, this new evidence does not overcome our previous 
finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
managerial capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter o.fC-U-G- Corp., ID# 1213705 (AAO Apr. 30, 2018) 
3