dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20633255 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 24, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner, an operator of a liquor store, sought 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 )(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. A lengthy procedural history followed the denial , and the matter came before us 
on multiple appeals and motions. 1 In our latest decision, we addressed the arguments that were made 
in suppo1i of a motion that we previously determined was untimely, concluding that the motion did 
not merit a favorable decision because it did not meet the regulatory requirements of a motion to 
reopen. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and reconsider. 
An applicant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review , we will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to 
reopen and reconsider and the petition will remain denied. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that motions for the reopening or reconsideration of immigration 
proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial 
on the basis of newly discovered evidence . See INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314,323 (1992)(citing1NS 
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. As previously noted, the matter currently before us is the fifth motion. 
Furthermore , a motion may only be filed by an affected party . See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) (when a 
motion is filed by an affected party , the official having jurisdiction may reopen the proceeding or 
reconsider the prior decision, if proper cause is shown) . An affected party means "the person or entity 
1 After the Director denied the petition , the Petition er filed an appeal , which we dismissed , and the Petition er filed the first 
motion to reopen and reconsider that we a !so dismissed. The Petitioner then filed an appeal , which we rejected ; this 
promptedanothermotion to reopen and reconsider , which we dismissed. In December 2020, a motion to reopen was filed. 
Although we initia Uy dismissed that motion as untimely , upon further review we reopened the matter on service motion 
and issued a new adverse decision which prompted the current motion. 
with legal standing in a proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B). In the case of an employment­
based immigrant visa petition, the affected party is generally the petitioner, the prospective employer 
that filed the petition. 
The motion to reopen and reconsider that is before us was filed by rather than 
the entity that originally filed the Form I-140 petition. 2 In the corresponding legal brief, counsel on 
behalf of the filing entity explains that "[t]he Petitioner has continued ... to maintain a systematic and 
continuous course of business through new entities which have assumed the responsibilities and 
liabilities of the initial corporate entity." However, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Policy 
Manual states that in instances where there is a "new or successor employer seeking to classify the 
beneficiary as an employment-based 1st preference multi-national executive or manager," the new 
employer must file a new petition establishing eligibility for the benefit sought. See 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-e-chapter-3. 3 Because the filer of this motion is 
I I which is not an affected party, that filer is not entitled to file a motion. Therefore, the 
motion to reopen and reconsider must be dismissed. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider does not meet the 
requirements of a motion. Under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4), a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen filed on November 9, 2021 is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen filed on November 9, 2021 is dismissed. 
2 A legal brief was submitted in support of the December 2020 motion, stating that the original Petitioner "underwent 
ha rd ship that led to the entity's closure." The brief further states thattwo other separate legal entities had been incorporated. 
Consequently. it would a ppeartheBeneficiary is no longer eligible for the benefit sought as filed. 
3 As indicated in ourpriordecision, there is nothing precluding a newly created entity from filing a newpetition(s) on the 
Beneficiary's behalf. 
2