dismissed EB-1C Case: Restaurant Operations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6843838 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 20, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executive s 
The Petitioner, which was engaged in the operation of a restaurant through its subsidiary I I .....__..JJl seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its managing director 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). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center revoked the approval of the petition , determining that the 
Petitioner did not establish that: (1) it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity; (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; and (3) the 
Petitioner was doing business as defined in the regulations . The Petitioner later filed an appeal we 
dismissed after it did not respond to a notice of intent to deny and request for evidence (NOID /RFE) 
we issued. The matter is now before us again on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. 
On motion , the Petitioner contends that it did not respond to our NOID /RFE because it was sent to the 
wrong address and never received. Further , the Petitioner contends that the closing of its restaurant 
does not mean that it is not doing busines s and it submits additional evidence as to its claimed business 
activities . 
Upon review , we will dismiss the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. 
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). A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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) . We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
On motion, the Petitioner provides additional evidence specific to its claimed operations as of the date 
of the motion. However, upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
new facts supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence to warrant the reopening of this 
matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
In denying the Petitioner's previous appeal, we concluded that it had abandoned the matter as it did 
not respond to a NOID/RFE we issued in February 2019 inquiring about information indicating that 
its restaurant had permanently closed subsequent to the filing of the appeal. The NOID/RFE was sent 
to I IV A I I address), the address listed in the Form I-
290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. Further, we also indicated in the NOID/RFE that we sent a copy 
to "the company's current registered address as reported tel the vrginia State Corporation 
Commission," or the address listed on this motion decision (the~-~address). In addition, we 
determined that the appeal was moot, since the Petitioner did not properly respond to information 
reflecting that its business was no longer operating, a business upon which the Beneficiary's 
employment offer was based. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the "NOID/RFE was not responded [to] and I-140 petition was 
denied, because [the Petitioner] never received a copy of the NOID/RFE." The Petitioner contends 
that if they had received the NOID/RFE "[they] would have responded to it." The Petitioner noted 
that our last decision was sent to thel !address and the NOID/RFE to the I I address. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the Beneficiary's former foreign employer 
acknowledging that it closed its restaurant, but states that it "should not be presumed that the closing 
of the restaurant would mean that the business operations of [ the Petitioner] would cease." The foreign 
employer indicates that the Petitioner continues to explore "real estate investment and restaurant 
operations." It further submits documentation meant to demonstrate its claimed operations, including 
a license agreement, a lease agreement, marketing information on the Washington D.C. hotel market, 
an executive summary setting forth plans to renovate and open a hotel, various property listings and 
emails to real estate agents, and evidence relevant to the previous operation of its now closed 
restaurant. 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient new facts supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence to warrant the reopening of this matter. First, none of the submitted evidence 
is relevant to our conclusion that the Petitioner did not respond to our previous NOID/RFE and our 
determination that this matter was abandoned. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that it did not receive 
the NOID/RFE because it was sent to thel I address, and not its current I I address. 
However, as discussed in our NOID/RFE, the notice was sent to both thel !address (the 
address listed on the I-290B) and copied to the I I address. As such, absent sufficient 
corroborative evidence to support the Petitioner's claim that it did not receive a copy of our 
NOID/RFE, we conclude that the it was properly served in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.8. An 
uncorroborated, self-serving denial of receipt, is not probative evidence, even if sworn. Joshi v. 
Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 732, 735 (7th Cir. 2004). Therefore, the submitted evidence does not overcome 
2 
our previous conclusion that the Petitioner abandoned this matter due to its lack of response to our 
NOID/RFE. 
Further, even if we determined that the Petitioner had not abandoned this matter, the new evidence 
does not overcome our previous conclusion that this matter is now moot. The Petitioner acknowledges 
on motion that it closed its restaurant, the basis of its operations, the Beneficiary's claimed managerial 
or executive role, and his employment in the United States. The Petitioner asserts that it continues to 
do business in real estate and other ventures, but also indicates that it pulled out from a potential 
scanning services business, "has been working to pursue multiple real estate acquisitions and 
development projects," and has a proposed plan to redesign and open a hotel. However, none of this 
new evidence reflects that it is currently doing business 1 as defined by the regulations or operating 
sufficiently to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. Indeed, the Petitioner's 
prospective business plans are irrelevant to the ultimate matter before us; namely, whether the Director 
properly revoked the Petitioner's previously approved petition. Since the business that once employed 
the Beneficiary no longer exists, we do not find evidence of new potential business projects relevant 
to demonstrating that the Director erred in revoking the previously approved petition. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient new facts supported by affidavits 
or other documentary evidence to warrant the reopening of this matter. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner has also not provided sufficient reasons to reconsider our previous decision to dismiss 
its appeal. The Petitioner must demonstrate that our previous decision was an incorrect application or 
law or policy based on the submitted evidence at that time and must also demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for the requested benefit. 
For similar reasons as those expressed in the previous section, the Petitioner has not established that 
our previous decision to dismiss its appeal was based an incorrect application or law or policy based 
on the evidence before us at the time of the decision. As noted, we sent a NOID/RFE inquiring about 
the closing of the Petitioner's restaurant business, the basis of the Beneficiary's qualifying 
employment, and it did not respond; thereby abandoning this matter. The Petitioner's contention that 
it did not receive the NOID/RFE is not convincing, as our NOID/RFE was sent to both addresses listed 
in the record. Further, as discussed, the Petitioner acknowledges its restaurant is no longer doing 
business and otherwise provides little evidence to demonstrate that it is doing business currently or 
that the Beneficiary is acting in a managerial or executive capacity. In fact, the merits of this matter 
are ultimately based in whether the Director acted in error when it revoked the Petitioner's previously 
approved petition. However, the Petitioner does not address this issue on motion and the evidence 
indicates that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary are not eligible of the benefit sought. As such, the 
Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
1 The regulations very clearly state that a U.S. employer may file a petition on behalf of a foreign national it seeks to 
employ as a multinational executive or manager. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i)(l ). The regulations also explain that the "prospective 
employer in the United States is the same employer" or a related entity of the foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). The prospective employer must have been doing business for at least one year. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D). 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration 
of our prior decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed 
4