dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF JJST- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 16, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wireless equipment and accessories retailer, 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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. That 
decision was affirmed in response to the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. We 
dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal and upheld the denial. We also added a second ground 
for dismissing the appeal, finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and reconsider. In support of its motion, the 
Petitioner disputes the Director's basis for denial contending that the Beneficiary had an "executive 
managerial position" abroad and will assume a position in the same capacity with the U.S. entity. The 
Petitioner does not, however, address or dispute the second basis for the appeal dismissal in which we 
found that the Petitioner did not establish the existence of a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, 
has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity, 
and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive services to the 
same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
Matter of JJST- LLC 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer has been doing 
business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(3). 
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 is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for 
reconsideration; (2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial 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. 
11. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
In order to establish a "qualifying relationship," the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (a U.S. entity with a foreign office) 
or that they are related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See § 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act; 
see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(2) (providing definitions of the terms "affiliate" and "subsidiary"). 
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we determined that the record lacks sufficient evidence 
establishing the foreign entity's majority ownership of the Petitioner, which purportedly resulted in a 
parent-subsidiary relationship. We acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of its federal tax returns 
for 2014 and 2015 along with several 2013 ownership documents regarding the Petitioner's ownership, 
including a membership certificate, a partial copy of a membership purchase agreement, minutes of a 
special meeting, and an unexecuted operating agreement. However, we pointed to several documents 
which show that there are inconsistencies regarding the Petitioner's ownership at a time when the 
foreign entity was claimed to have acquired majority ownership. 
Although the Petitioner now disputes the Director's original basis for denying the petition, it does not 
dispute or address the additional adverse finding regarding the qualifying relationship issue on motion. 
Because the Petitioner did not address one of the grounds for dismissing the appeal, it has not satisfied 
the motion requirements. There are no facts or affidavits or other documentary evidence provided on 
motion regarding the qualifying relationship issue, therefore, the motion to reopen cannot be granted. 
Also, as the Petitioner has not addressed our adverse findings regarding the qualifying relationship 
issue, it has not established a basis for reconsideration or cited to pertinent precedent decisions 
establishing that we erred by incorrectly applying law or policy to the facts presented in the record. 
Further, when a party fails to offer an argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned. Sepulveda v. 
US. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 
2011 WL 4711885, at *I, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims abandoned when not raised 
2 
Matter of JJST- LLC 
on appeal to the AAO). Therefore, even if the Petitioner had overcome the original basis for the denial 
in this motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, these motions would be denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsidering 
the prior decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of JJST- LLC, ID# 3028803 (AAO Apr. 16, 2019) 
3