dismissed EB-1C Case: Specialized Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF X-I-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 30,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a "specialized services" provider, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent 
appeal from that decision, finding that the Petitioner did not establish, as required that: ( 1) it has a 
qualifYing relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad; (2) the Beneficiary would be employed 
in the United States in a managerial capacity; (3) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 
capacity; and (4) the Petitioner has the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. On motion, the Petitioner contends that it is ··a 
qualified employer" and that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the 
United States in a managerial capacity. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
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. 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 
In support of its motion to reconsider, the Petitioner provides a brief highlighting portions of its 
previous claim and contending that it is "a qualified organization to be considered an incorporation 
Matter of X-I-, LLC 
[sic] organized within the United States and maintains business relationship [sic] with several other 
entities and associates in Brazil." The Petitioner claims that it provided its articles of incorporation, 
invoices, and "others" as evidence of an "existing relationship" between the Beneficiary's foreign 
and U.S. employers. However, the Petitioner does not cite to USCIS law or policy applicable to the 
qualifying relationship requirement for the requested immigrant visa classification, nor does it 
address the specific deficiencies in the record, which we discussed in our prior decision. 
The Petitioner paraphrases the statutory definition of "managerial capacity"' found at section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), and contends that the Beneficiary's foreign and 
proposed employment satisfy this definition. The Petitioner also provides a breakdown ofjob duties 
for each position with the percentage of time the Beneficiary allocated and would allocate to each 
duty. Finally, the Petitioner cites to Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 
(Comm'r 1988), but does not state how the cited decision supports its contention that our decision to 
dismiss the appeal was incorrect. Rather, the Petitioner merely restates the language that we used in 
our prior decision. 
We discussed the Beneficiary's previous foreign and proposed U.S. job duties in our prior decision 
and explained why those duties, when considered within the totality of the evidence, did not establish 
that he had been or would be employed in a managerial capacity. Although the Petitioner relies on 
the statutory definition of that term and re-submits job descriptions for the Beneficiary, it does not 
address the specific findings we made in our prior decision and therefore has not established that we 
misapplied the law to the facts of this case. 
As the Petitioner does not allege an incorrect application of law or policy in our prior decision, we 
will deny the motion to reconsider. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of X-1-, LLC, ID# 725358 (AAO Oct. 30, 2017) 
2