dismissed EB-1C Case: Steel Dealing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-M-C-USA 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 21. 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a steel dealer, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a marketing manager 
under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial 
or executive capacity. The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which the 
Director denied. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director erred by 
disregarding new evidence and arguments submitted in support of the motion. The Petitioner asserts 
that it will submit a brief within 30 days, but that period has elapsed and the record contains no further 
substantive submission from the Petitioner. 
We will dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner did not appeal the denial order itself Rather, the Petitioner filed a motion with the 
Nebraska Service Center, and then appealed the Director's subsequent finding that the motion did not 
meet the requirements of a motion to reopen, a motion to reconsider, or both. Therefore, the merits of 
the denial decision, and of the underlying petition, are not before us. The only issue before us is 
whether the Director properly found that the motion did not meet applicable requirements. 
Neither the Director's second decision nor the Petitioner's appeal includes substantive discussion. The 
Director stated, without elaboration: "This motion is not accompanied by new evidence. This motion 
also does not provide precedent decisions to consider; nor does it establish that the decision was 
incorrect based upon the evidence of record at the time." The Petitioner responds: "The Adjudicating 
Officer erred in not considering the additional documentary evidence as well as the discussion of 
eligibility." 
Matter of P-M-C- USA 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). The Director found, incorrectly, that the motion did not include "new evidence"; 
however, most of the newly submitted evidence relates to developments that occurred after the 
petition's filing date. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(1 ). Therefore, the newly submitted evidence would not have affected the outcome of the 
motion to reopen. 
Other evidence relates to the Beneficiary's employment abroad before the filing date, but the Director 
had previously requested this evidence and the Beneficiary did not submit it at that time. If the 
Director requested evidence while the petition was pending, and the Petitioner did not submit that 
evidence, then the omission is, itself, grounds for denial of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
The Petitioner's untimely submission of previously requested evidence is not grounds for reopening 
the petition. 
Similarly, the Director found that the Petitioner's motion to reconsider did not establish that the 
previous decision was incorrect at the time of that decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We 
agree with this conclusion. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director "erred in not considering 
... the discussion of eligibility," but this general assertion identifies no specific error. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-M-C-USA, ID# 2526202 (AAO Mar. 21, 2019)