dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-USA CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 10,2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a gas station and convenience store operator, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its vice president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to pem1anently 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: (I) the Beneliciary was employed abroad lor at least one year within the 
three years prior to changing his status to that of an L-1 A nonimmigrant; (2) the Beneliciary would be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; and (3) it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad. The Petitioner subsequently appealed the matter 
and we rejected the appeal based on its untimely tiling. 
The matter is now bclore us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, the 
Petitioner contends that it did not receive the Director's decision in time to submit a timely appeal. 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal tiling requirements (such 
as, for instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with 
the correct fcc), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (I) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supportC'd by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that we based our decision 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. A petitioner must support its motion to reconsider with a 
pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security policy. 
Mauer of M-USA Corp. 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that it timely tiled its appeal. 
The record reflects that the Director issued the denial decision on August 5, 2016, and the Petitioner 
filed its appeal on October 5, 2016, 60 days afier the decision was issued. An appeal must be tiled 
within 33 calendar days of the date USC IS served the unfavorable decision by mail. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ I 03.3(a)(2)(i), I 03.8(b). 
In support of its motion to reopen and reconsider, the Petitioner submits a brief arguing that its late 
tiling of an appeal was justified because "the Service did not make its decision known to counsel of 
petitioner until SEPTEMBER 5. 2016 .... " (Emphasis in original). The Petitioner docs not 
specitically identify the nature of USCIS' alleged error or state what is meant by "did not make its 
decision known." Moreover, the Petitioner states that it did not retain the envelope in which the 
Director's decision was mailed, so we cannot review the postal date stamp to determine whether 
there was a delay in mailing it to the Petitioner and counsel. USClS records indicate that the service 
center mailed the decision on August 3, 2016. The Petitioner has not provided evidence rebutting 
USC IS records regarding the mailing date of the decision. Therefore, it has not been established that 
the Petitioner's late filing of the appeal was the direct result of an untimely mailing of the denial. 
As the Petitioner has not provided evidence to support its claims, nor alleged an incorrect application 
of law or policy in our prior decision, it does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a 
motion to reconsider. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopentng or 
reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Mauer of"M-USA Corp., ID# 685280 (AAO Apr. I 0, 20 18) 
2