dismissed EB-1C Case: Supply Chain Management

MATTER OF M-S-R-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 31, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a producer and distributor of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resin, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its "Manager, Supply Chain and Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP)" 
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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity, or that he was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity prior to his 
entry to the United States to work for the Petitioner as a nonimmigrant. We summarily dismissed the 
Petitioner's subsequent appeal because it did not include a statement in support of the appeal that 
specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the Director's decision. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, counsel for 
the Petitioner acknowledges that he did not submit the required statement in support of the appeal, or 
submit a brief or additional evidence to our office within 30 days of filing the appeal, despite 
indicating on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that he would do so. The Petitioner now 
submits a brief addressing the Director's decision and the merits of its case. 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as, 
for instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the 
correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(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 
Matter of M-S-R-, Inc. 
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 
The issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts supported by documentary 
evidence sufficient to warrant reopening its appeal, or established that our decision to summarily 
dismiss its appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy. 
The regulations provide that an officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal 
when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
We summarily dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner did not submit a statement identifying any 
erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal, as instructed on the Form 1-
290B. We also reviewed the record and determined that the Petitioner had not submitted a brief or 
evidence to our office within 30 days after indicating on the Form 1-290B that these materials would be 
provided. 
The Petitioner concedes that it did not submit a statement, brief, or evidence in support of its appeal 
prior to our decision to summarily dismiss that appeal. Therefore, the Petitioner does not claim that we 
summarily dismissed the appeal in error or that we misapplied any law or policy to the evidence 
presented to us. Therefore, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner also has not submitted any new facts that would overcome our decision to summarily 
dismiss the appeal. The motion includes an affidavit from counsel, who confirms that he did not 
submit a brief, evidence, or statement in support of the motion, but these are not new facts. We will 
not consider the newly submitted brief discussing the merits of the case absent evidence that we 
summarily dismissed the appeal in error. The Petitioner has not provided such evidence or shown that 
the matter should be reopened. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of M-S-R-, Inc., ID# 1559549 (AAO July 31, 2018) 
2