dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLICCOPY 
DATE: MAR 1 4 2012 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: ._ 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
rr.~ ..... 
\J Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the director, Texas Service Center. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) summarily dismissed the subsequently filed appeal. The matter is 
now before the AAO on a motion to reconsider. The motion will be dismissed and the director's and the 
AAO's decision will be undisturbed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that is engaged in the retail sale of imported products, and seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its Vice PresidentlFinancial Manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to 
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(C) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
On January 26, 2009, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On February 25, 2009, the petitioner filed Form I-290B and stated that it is filing an appeal, and a brief 
and/or additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. In a decision dated May 14, 
20 I 0, the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal and stated, "over fourteen months have passed since the 
filing of the appeal and there is no evidence that the petitioner supplemented the record with any 
additional evidence or information addressing the ground cited for denial." On June 15, 2010, counsel for 
the petitioner tiled a Form I-290B and identified it as a Motion to Reconsider. 
On motion, counsel contends that "due to the serious and ultimately fatal illness of petitioner's former 
attorney, the supporting brief was mistakenly mailed to the wrong office." The petitioner also submitted a 
declaration from the beneficiary that states the previous attorney became ill and "informed me that he would 
be unable to continue rep~ioner] and referred the matters as to w~ch he represented [the 
petitioner] to the law firm ___ " The beneficiary also states that the previous attorney "became 
disabled and could not perfect the appeal ofthe denial of [the petitioner's] 1-140 and 1-485 applications." 
In addition, the petitioner provides copies of email correspondence between the previous attorney and the 
petitioner. In email correspondence dated November 20, 2009, the previous attorney contacted the 
beneficiary to tell him that due to his illness he will close his practice and he stated that "I am transferring my 
immigration cases to an attorney with whom I have worked for five years. Her name is The 
previous attorney further stated that if the petitioner wished to transfer the file to an attorney other than 
...... , "please advise me and I will forward your file to that attorney." 
On November 21, 2009, the petitioner responded to the previous attorney via email correspondence and 
stated, "about our cases whatever you suggest or advise we follow you." On November 22, 2009, the prior 
counsel responded in an email correspondence and stated, "You might want to consider an immigration 
attorney in your local area to help you because your issues are complex. 1 know has the skills to 
do the job, but it will time consuming. Let me know your thoughts." The petitioner did not provide any 
additional correspondence showing that the petitioner decided to transfer the case either to _ or 
another attorney. 
On motion, counsel for the petitioner restates the procedural history of the case, listing the factual history 
of the beneficiary's U.S.-based employment, restating the beneficiary's duties, and paraphrasing the 
Page 3 
relevant statutory and regulatory provisions. The AAO will not consider this brief since it is outside of 
the scope of the current Motion to Reconsider. The motion is to reconsider the AAO's summary 
dismissal of the appeal and not the underlying denial of the 1-140 petition. 
Counsel's assertions do not satisfy the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) 
states, in pertinent part: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application 
or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 
On motion, counsel does not submit any document that would meet the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider. A review of the record and the adverse decision indicates that the director and the AAO 
properly applied the statute and regulations to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not provide any 
evidence to establish that the AAO's decision was incorrect. The petitioner's primary complaint is that 
the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal. On motion, the petitioner explains that the previous attorney 
became ill and could not file the supporting documentation for the Form 1-290B that was filed on 
February 25, 2009. However, according to email correspondence provided by the petitioner between the 
previous attorney and the petitioner, the prior attorney informed the petitioner of his illness and the need 
to transfer his cases to another attorney on November 20, 2009, over nine months after the Form 1-290B 
was filed. Thus, the petitioner's claim that the attorney's illness is the cause for the delay in submitting 
supplemental evidence for the appeal is not corroborated. As the petitioner did not provide any evidence 
to establish that the AAO's decision was incorrect, the motion will be dismissed. 
Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for 
rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 
314,323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a 
"heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the movant has not met that 
burden. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) states that "[a] motion that 
does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed, 
the proceedings will not be reconsidered, and the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not 
be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.