dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18862555 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 09, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, an operator of a liquor store, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
"executive" 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and a motion to 
reconsider that we also dismissed . The Petitioner then filed an appeal we rejected, indicating that we 
did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of our own decision. The Petitioner subsequently filed another 
motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, both of which we dismissed. The Petitioner then filed a 
motion to reopen that we dismissed as untimely. However, we later reopened the matter on a service 
motion to issue this decision. 1 
In support of its December 2020 motion, the Petitioner acknowledged the "closure" of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer, emphasizing that it had "underwent hardship that led to the entity's 
closure." Nonetheless, the Petitioner asserted that we took "excessive time" to reach a correct 
decision, entitling the Beneficiary to "a favorable decision, nunc pro tunc."2 The Petitioner contends 
that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has made "numerous previous 
erroneous decisions" causing the foreign employer undue hardship requiring equitable relief. 
Upon review, we will dismiss the Petitioner's December 2020 motion to reopen and the petition will 
remain denied. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
1 We acknowledge that the Petitioner filed another motion to reopen in June 2021 following our April 2021 dismissal of 
its previous motion as untimely. As noted above, we have reopened this matter on a service motion, concluding that the 
Petitioner's December 2020 motion to reopen was timely. The Petitioner's June 2021 motion only addressed the issue of 
untimeliness; therefore , it is now moot, as we have rectified this issue by reopening this matter, issuing this decision, and 
refunding the fee paid for the June 2021 motion under separate correspondence. Therefore , the only issue before us is the 
Petitioner's December 2020 motion to reopen filed in response to our decision issued in October 2020. 
2 Having retroactive legal effect through a court's inherent power. See Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), nunc pro 
tune. 
A petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements of a motion and show proper cause for granting 
the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that meets these requirements 
and establishes eligibility for the benefit sought. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In order to meet the requirements of a motion to reopen the Petitioner must submit new facts supported 
by affidavits or documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). As discussed, the Petitioner asserted 
on motion in December 2020 that we made "numerous" previous errors in our decisions requiring us 
to grant the petition. First, the Petitioner did not specifically articulate these claimed errors. Further, 
it has not submitted additional documentary evidence, not previously submitted, to support these 
asserted errors to meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. Therefore, as a preliminary matter, the 
Petitioner's December 2020 motion did not meet the regulatory requirements of a motion to reopen. 
Nevertheless, we will briefly address the Petitioner's contentions submitted in support of its December 
2020 motion to reopen; specifically, the merits of our decision issued prior to this in October 2020. In 
that decision, we addressed our prior rejection of the Petitioner's Form I-290B Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, since it was an appeal of our prior decision. 3 We stated that the Petitioner did not articulate 
how this rejection was an incorrect application oflaw or policy. Further, we noted that the Petitioner 
clearly indicated in the Form I-290B filed in April 2019 that it was filing an appeal, and consistent 
with an appeal, provided its brief after filing, unlike a motion requiring the submittal of all supporting 
documentation upon filing. Therefore, we concluded that our rejection of its appeal in response to our 
decision was consistent with law. In addition, we concluded that since the foreign employer was no 
longer operational, which the Petitioner acknowledged, this indicated that there was no longer a 
qualifying relationship between it and the Beneficiary's former foreign employer, and that it was no 
longer eligible for the benefit sought. 
In response to our October 2020 decision, the Petitioner did not address its specifics, nor our prior 
October 2019 rejection of its appeal addressed in that decision. The Petitioner also did not discuss 
how the Beneficiary still qualifies for the benefit sought, but only asserts we approve the petition as a 
form of equitable relief. However, we, like the Board of Immigration Appeals, are without authority 
to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude a component part of USCIS from a lawful course 
of action that it is empowered to pursue by statute or regulation. Matter of Hernandez-Puente, 20 I&N 
Dec. 335, 338 (BIA 1991). Estoppel is an equitable form of relief that is available only through the 
courts. Our jurisdiction is limited to that specifically granted by the Secretary of the U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security. See, e.g., DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2.1. Our jurisdiction is limited to those matters described at 8 C.F.R. § 103.l(f)(3)(E)(iii). 
3 We do not have appellate jurisdiction over our own decisions. The authority to adjudicate appeals is delegated to us by 
the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to the authority vested in him or her through 
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); see 
also 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003). This office exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters described at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.l(t)(3)(iii) (as in effect on February 28, 2003), with one exception, i.e., petitions for approval of schools to accept 
foreign students are now the responsibility oflmmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). See DHS Delegation Number 
0150.l(U) supra; 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(iv); and 8 C.F.R. § 214.3. 
2 
Accordingly, we have no authority to address the Petitioner's equitable estoppel claim submitted on 
motion. 
In fact, the Petitioner appeared to acknowledge in support of its December 2020 motion that the 
Beneficiary is no longer eligible for the benefit sought stating that it "underwent hardship that led to 
the entity's closure." The Petitioner farther indicated that it had incorporated as two other separate 
legal entities. 4 The Petitioner's statement that it no longer operates is material to its eligibility for the 
requested visa, including whether it continues to exist as an intending U.S. employer, maintains a 
qualifying relationship with a foreign entity, and is doing business as required by the regulations. See 
section 214(c)(l) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G) and (1)(3). Therefore, since the 
Petitioner is no longer operating, through its own admission, the underlying petition has become moot. 
The Beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought, specific to the Petitioner, is no longer possible. 
Again, we may only grant a motion that meets the regulatory requirements and establishes eligibility 
for the benefit sought. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's motion to reopen filed in December 2020 did not met the 
requirements of a motion, nor did it demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought as 
necessary to grant the motion. 
ORDER: The Petitioner's motion to reopen filed on December 3, 2020 is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The Petitioner's motion to reopen filed on June 0 1, 2021 is dismissed. 
4 We note that there is nothing precluding these entities from filing new petitions on behalf of the Beneficiary. 
3