dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail Trade And Investments

U.S. Department of Homeiand Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
pU'BL1C COPY 84 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 05 014 51210 
 OCT 10 2007 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Of'fice in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
~dminiscative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal was dismissed. The 
petitioner has now filed a second Form I-1290B attempting to appeal the AAO's prior adverse decision. The 
AAO notes, however, that the petitioner cannot file an appeal with the AAO in order to appeal the AAO's 
prior decision. It appears, therefore, that the petitioner intended to file a motion to reopen andlor reconsider. 
The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Texas corporation engaged in the business of retail trade and investments. It seeks to 
employ the beneficiary as its director. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition 
concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The petitioner appealed the denial disputing the director's findings. 
 However, the AAO affirmed the 
director's decision, concluding that the petitioner failed to provide a sufficient job description and supporting 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary would primarily perform duties within a managerial or executive 
capacity. In addition to the director's ground for denial, the AAO determined that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity was within a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. 
On motion, counsel states, "Errors of facts and law will be discussed in the brief to follow shortly." At the 
time of the AAO's initial review of this matter, a brief had not been received. Furthermore, the regulation 
pertaining to the submission of a motion does not allow for additional time in which to provide a brief in 
support of a motion. Motions are required to be filed with the brief, if any. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(iii); 
see generally 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a). 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(2) state, in pertinent part, that a motion to reopen must state the new 
facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence. 
In the present matter, no new facts or supporting documentary evidence have been submitted. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(3) state, in pertinent part: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or CIS policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or 
petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 
While counsel suggests that there were errors of law and fact, he does not cite any legal precedent or 
applicable law that would indicate an error on the part of the AAO in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. 
Therefore, the motion will be dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(4), which states, in pertinent 
part, that a motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
Page 3 
As a final note, the proper filing of a motion to reopen andlor reconsider does not stay the AAO's prior 
decision to dismiss an appeal or extend a beneficiary's previously set departure date. 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.5(a)(l)(iv). 
In visa petition proceehngs, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.