dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationservices
AdministrativeAppealsOMce(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and ImmigratiOn
Services
DATE: OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
DEC242012
IN RE: Petitionir
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof $630. The
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiledwithin
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
Ron Rosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The preferencevisa petition was deniedby the Director,TexasServiceCenter. The
petitionerappealedthematterto theAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) wheretheappealwasdismissed.
ThematterisnowbeforetheAAO onmotiontoreconsider,Themotionwill bedismissed.
Thepetitioneris aFloridacorporationthatseeksto employthebeneficiaryasmanagerof its retailoperation.
Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorsto classifythebeneficiaryasanemployment-basedimmigrantpursuant
to section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ ll53(b)(1)(C), as a
multinationalexecutiveor manager.
The director determinedthat the petitionerfailed to establishthat the beneficiarymeetsthe foreign
employmentprovision,whichrequiresthepetitionerto establishthatthebeneficiarywasemployedabroad
with a qualifyingemployerprior to his U.S.entryasa nonimmigrant.Thedirectoracknowledgedthatthe
beneficiary'sforeignemployerandhis prior U.S.employerhavea qualifyingrelationship,but determined
thatthesameis nottrueof thecurrentpetitioningentityandthebeneficiary'sformeremployerabroad.
On appeal,thepetitionerdisputedthe director'sdecision,claimingthat the petitioneris affiliated with a
foreign entity. The petitionerassertedthat the director'sdecisionwas unreasonableand contraryto
congressionalintent.
The AAO found the petitioner'sassertionson appealto be contradictoryto statutoryand regulatory
provisions.TheAAO referredto thefiling requirementsdescribedat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(3)(i),whichindicate
that the beneficiary'semploymentwith the petitioningU.S. entity mustbe a continuationof his or her
employmentwith the entityabroadandthatthe foreignemployerandthepetitioningU.S.employermust
havea qualifyingrelationshipat thetime theFormI-140 is filed. TheAAO assessedthefactsthatwere
presentedin light of the statutoryand regulatoryrequirementsandconcludedthat the petitionerneither
claimednorprovidedevidenceto establishthatit hada qualifyingrelationshipwith anyof theentitiesthat
employedthe beneficiaryabroad,thusrenderingthe petitionerineligibleto classifythe beneficiaryas a
multinational manageror executive. The petitioner has filed a motion to reconsider,seekingto establishthat
theAAO's decisionwasmadein error.
With regard to the requirementsfor a motion to reconsider,the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)states,in
pertinentpart:
A motionto reconsidermuststatethereasonsfor reconsiderationandbesupportedby any
pertinentprecedentdecisionsto establishthat the decisionwas basedon an incorrect
applicationof law or Servicepolicy. A motionto reconsidera decisiononanapplicationor
petitionmust,whenfiled,alsoestablishthatthedecisionwasincorrectbasedontheevidence
of recordatthetimeof theinitial decision.
Thepetitioner'scurrentmotionto reconsideris basedon thesameerroneousassertionsthatthepetitioner
previously made on appeal-that the beneficiary'sprior U.S. employer,which filed an L-1
nonimmigrantpetition on the beneficiary'sbehalf, had a qualifying relationshipwith Eurodata,the
beneficiary'sforeignemployer.Althoughthepetitionercontendsthatit "providedsufficientcountervailing
evidencein supportof FormI-140,"suchevidencedidnotanddoesnotestablishthatthepetitioner,Alaska,
Inc.,sharescommonownershipandcontrolwith theforeignentitywherethebeneficiaryhadbeenemployed
prior to his entryto the UnitedStates.Rather,thepetitioneradmitsthatthe beneficiarydid not enterthe
Page3
United Statesto be employedby the petitionerand erroneouslyfocuseson the petitioner'sclaimed
"qualifyingrelationshipwith otherentitiesabroad." Thepetitionerignoresthe director'sandthe AAO's
respectivefindings,which emphasizedthe lack of a qualifyingrelationshipbetweenthepetitionerandthe
beneficiary'sforeignemployer.Whetheror not thepetitionersharescommonownershipandcontrolwith
foreignentitiesthatdid not employthebeneficiaryis irrelevantanddoesnot establishthe existenceof a
qualifyingrelationshiFa termthathasbeenspecificallydefinedwithin theimmigrationcontextof section
203(b)of theAct.
Thepetitionerdoesnotciteanylegalprecedentor applicablelaw thatwouldindicateanerroronthepartof
theAAO in dismissingtheappeal.Therefore,themotionwill be dismissedin accordancewith 8 C.F.R.§
103.5(a)(4),whichstates,in pertinentpart,thata motionthatdoesnotmeetapplicablerequirementsshallbe
dismissed.
Thefiling of amotiontoreopenand/orreconsiderdoesnotstaytheAAO'spriordecisionto dismissanappeal
orextendabeneficiary'spreviouslysetdeparturedate.8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(iv).
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibilityfor thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291oftheAct,8U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Themotionisdismissed.