dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 3, 2025 In Re: 35403836 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a cellular phone retailer, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its controller 
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 a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition in January 2023, concluding that the 
Petitioner had not established that: (1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity, 
and (2) the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in an executive capacity. 
The Petitioner appealed the denial of the petition. We dismissed the appeal in August 2023, agreeing 
with the Director's determination about the Beneficiary 's intended U.S. employment. This 
determination, by itself, was sufficient to warrant dismissal of the appeal. We agreed with the 
Petitioner that the Director had not applied the requirements of a managerial capacity to the 
Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad, but we observed that this claimed employment abroad took 
place outside the statutorily required three-year period preceding the petition's July 2022 filing date. 
The Beneficiary was in the United States throughout that period, having entered the United States in 
May 2019, and therefore he cannot qualify for the classification sought until he leaves the United 
States and engages in qualifying employment abroad for at least one year. We further determined that 
the Petitioner had submitted incomplete and inconsistent information about the ownership of the two 
claimed employing entities. 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which we dismissed in March 2024. In that decision, we 
determined that the Petitioner had not shown that we erred in our appellate decision; had only partially 
addressed the issue of ownership; and had not addressed the disqualifying issue of the timing of the 
Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad. 
The Petitioner then filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which we dismissed in August 
2024. In that decision, we determined that the Petitioner's second motion only addressed the 
ownership issue, with evidence that introduced more inconsistencies. 
The matter is now before us on motion to reconsider, the Petitioner's third motion overall. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 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). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Our prior decision is the August 2024 dismissal of the Petitioner's 
second motion. Therefore, only the August 2024 decision is properly before us on motion. 
In that August 2024 decision, we concluded that the Petitioner's second motion addressed only one 
issue, regarding the Petitioner's claimed relationship with the Beneficiary's claimed employer abroad. 
We concluded that, because "[t]he Petitioner [did] not brief or even mention the dismissal grounds 
regarding the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. employment," the Petitioner had waived those 
issues, either of which was sufficient to warrant denial of the petition. Therefore, we concluded that 
the Petitioner had not established grounds for reconsideration. 
In its latest motion, the Petitioner submits copies of previously submitted documents and a new 
organizational chart, dated 2024, that contains the same information as a previously submitted chart 
dated 2022. The Petitioner also repeats its prior assertion that "the Beneficiary is responsible for filing 
the appropriate financial reports with their respective ... authorities." The Petitioner states that these 
documents show that "[t]he Beneficiary worked abroad for at least one year during the three-year 
period preceding the petition's filing" and "would work in an executive capacity in the United States." 
The Petitioner does not explain how these documents and assertions, which we already considered in 
previous decisions, overcome the conclusions we reached in those decisions. And the Petitioner 
neither addresses nor overcomes our conclusion that the Petitioner waived these issues by not raising 
or contesting them in its second motion. 
A motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief 
presented previously and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in prior decisions. See 
Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). The Petitioner's attempt to revive these issues lies 
beyond the scope of a motion to reconsider, and the Petitioner has not established proper cause for us 
to readjudicate these issues anew. 
Regarding the issue discussed in the Petitioner's second motion and in our August 2024 decision, the 
Petitioner submits another copy of a previously submitted 2021 partnership agreement. In our August 
2023 appellate decision, we acknowledged the partnership agreement but concluded that "the 
ownership evidence is incomplete and inconsistent," and therefore the Petitioner had not established 
a qualifying affiliate or parent-subsidiary relationship between the two claimed employers as required 
by section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). 
2 
In subsequent decisions, we explained why the Petitioner had not adequately addressed and resolved 
the issue of the relationship between the two companies. In our August 2024 decision, we noted that 
the Petitioner had submitted conflicting versions of tax returns, without evidence to show which 
versions had actually been filed with the Internal Revenue Service. We also concluded that newly 
submitted evidence raised still more questions because it contradicted prior submissions. 
In its latest motion, the Petitioner does not address the specific concerns we raised in our August 2024 
decision, and does not explain how its resubmission of the previously considered partnership 
agreement resolves those issues. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our August 2024 decision was based 
on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, we will 
dismiss the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3