dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 06, 2024 In Re: 29965560 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, which claims to operate a convenience store, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its general 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. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. We 
dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on motion to reconsider. The Petitioner 
bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
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). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we concluded the Petitioner did not meet its burden to demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad was in a managerial capacity as defined at section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A). We observed that the record lacked a detailed 
description of the Beneficiary's job duties and contained inconsistent information regarding his job title 
and placement in the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy. Further, we determined that while the 
Petitioner stated the Beneficiary had been employed abroad by its Indian affiliate beginning in 2015, 
other information and evidence in the record suggested that he had been residing in the United States 
since 2008 and therefore did not meet the one-year foreign employment requirement under section 
203(b)(1 )(C) of the Act. 
On motion, the Petitioner states: "Please be advised that we provided a job description for the foreign 
business which names the beneficiary, his job title and his subordinate employees." However, the 
Petitioner does not specifically address our determination that the record lacks detailed and consistent 
information regarding the Beneficiary's claimed position abroad. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was employed by its claimed Indian 
affiliate as "finance and accounts manager" but provided no additional information regarding the 
position. In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign 
entity's executive director, who stated the Beneficiary "started working as an accountant in January 
2015." This letter, which introduced an inconsistency regarding the Beneficiary's job title, also lacked 
a description of his job duties. The Petitioner evidence included the Beneficiary's undated resume, 
which includes his employment with the foreign entity, but states he performed duties relating to 
import, export, shipping, and logistics, rather than finance and accounting responsibilities. Finally, on 
appeal, the Petitioner stated the Beneficiary was employed abroad as an "account manager" 
responsible for preparing financial reports such as financial statements, but as discussed in our prior 
decision, this statement did not meet the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
primarily performed managerial job duties. 
The record also contains discrepancies regarding the Beneficiary's subordinate staff An 
organizational chart submitted at the time of filing indicates that he reported to the foreign entity's 
finance and account manager and supervised an "accounts assistant," despite the Petitioner's initial 
claim that the Beneficiary himself held the higher-level finance and account manager position. In his 
resume, the Beneficiary, states that he supervised an operations supervisor, but this position does not 
appear on the foreign entity's organizational chart. 
Therefore, contrary to the Petitioner's statement on motion, the record does not include, as required, a 
statement from a company representative that provides a detailed description of the Beneficiary's 
duties with the foreign entity and demonstrates that such duties were primarily managerial. Further, 
the limited information provided regarding the Beneficiary's job title, duties and placement within the 
foreign entity's organizational hierarchy is inconsistent, and no independent, objective evidence has 
been submitted to resolve those inconsistencies. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
In our prior decision, we also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had 
at least one year of employment abroad during the three years preceding his application for admission 
as required by section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). We emphasized that 
the Beneficiary did not identify his last period of employment abroad on his Form I-485, Application 
to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and Form G-325A Biographic Information, which 
he filed in connection with this petition. Further, based on the information provided on these forms, 
it appeared that he was residing in the United States during the same period the Petitioner claims he 
worked for its affiliate in India. 
On motion, the Petitioner's executive director states that the Beneficiary misunderstood the 
instructions on the Form G-325A and believed he was asked to provide information about his U.S. 
employment only. He asserts that "the beneficiary worked outside the U.S. for the foreign employer 
in Canada," entered the United States as a visitor, and obtained L-lA status in 2020 pursuant to an 
approved nonimmigrant petition filed in August 2019 filed by I I 
2 
However, the Beneficiary indicated on both his Form 1-485 and Form G-325A that his "last address 
outside the United States of more than 1 year" was in India, where he resided from 2007 until 2008. 
The Beneficiary also stated that he has continuously resided in Texas since at least November 2015. 
He does not indicate any period of residence in Canada and the Petitioner has not previously stated 
that the Beneficiary "worked outside the U.S. for the foreign employer in Canada." As emphasized in 
our prior decision, the record does not contain persuasive documentation, such as contemporaneous 
payroll or tax records, to resolve these inconsistencies and corroborate the Beneficiary's claimed dates 
of previous employment outside the United States. The Petitioner has not addressed this evidentiary 
deficiency on motion. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that our prior decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy, nor has it demonstrated that our decision was incorrect based 
on the record at the time of the prior decision. 
Finally, in our decision dismissing the appeal, we observed that the record did not establish the 
Petitioner: (1) had the ability to pay the proffered wage as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2); (2) had 
been doing business for at least one year at the time it filed the petition in March 2021; and (3) has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer. We noted that while these 
issues did not form the basis for the petition's denial, the Petitioner would need to address and resolve 
them in any farther proceedings. Briefly, we observed that the Petitioner named in this matter is 
I lbut the Federal Employment Identification Number (FEIN) stated on the 
Form I-140 is for a separate legal entity J I The record includes evidence of c=JI I affiliate relationship with the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer but no evidence 
of the ownership and control of the named Petitioner. Further, although the record contains evidence 
showing the business activities of a convenience store, the record contained inconsistent evidence as 
to which of these two separate legal entities was operating the store. 
On motion, the Petitioner's executive director explains that "the U.S. business failed to thrive" during 
the Covid-19 pandemic, and he therefore "sifned an operating agreement with J-M- to take control of 
his U.S. business! The motion includes a copy of the 2021 federal income 
tax return for~--------~ ( doing business asl I While this is 
the company name identified on the Form I-140, the FEIN on the tax return does not match the FEIN 
provided on the petition. Based on the information provided in the tax return, this entity shares no 
common ownership with the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer. The Petitioner's motion does 
not sufficiently address or resolve the deficiencies discussed in our decision with respect to the ability 
to pay, doing business, and qualifying relationship eligibility requirements for this classification. 
For the reasons provided, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on 
an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion 
will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3