dismissed EB-1C Case: Trust Fund Management

DATE: 
OCT 1 5 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1 )(C) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 53(b)(1 )(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa pelilion was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
petitioner appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal was summarily 
dismissed. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reconsider.! The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that claims to be engaged in the management of a trust fund and 
guardianship of a minor. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its managing director. Accordingly, the 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1 )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(1 )(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition on March 12, 2009, determining that the petitioner had not established that 
(I) the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity by the United States 
entity, (2) the beneficiary was employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity abroad for at least 
one year during the three years preceding the filing of the petition, or (3) that there is a qualifying relationship 
between the U.S. petitioner and a foreign employer of the beneficiary. 
On appeal, counsel did not contend that the director's decision was erroneous. Instead, counsel suggested that 
the AAO should sustain the appeal and approve the petition based on humanitarian grounds and to avoid 
causing extreme hardship to the beneficiary. Counsel further indicated that the petitioner and beneficiary 
were in the process of applying for a permanent labor certification and that the beneficiary intended to file 
another Form 1-140 immigrant petition on that basis, seeking to remain in the United States under this 
classification in the interim, until another lawful basis for his stay in the United States can be pursued. 
The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(J)(v), finding that the petitioner 
failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement offact for the appeal. 
On motion, again counsel asks the AAO to reconsider its prior decision and to take into account the 
beneficiary's unique circumstances and the hardships that would result to the beneficiary and his family if the 
instant petition were to be denied. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § J03.5(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 USCIS 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. 
Counsel does not cite any legal precedent or applicable law that would indicate an error on the patt of the 
AAO in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. While the beneficiary's circumstances are certainly unfortunate, 
I The record shows that the director erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the petitioner's motion to 
reconsider. In a subsequent service motion dated August 24, 20 II, the director acknowledged that a 
procedural error had been made on the part of the service center when it assumed jurisdiction over the 
petitioner's motion to reconsider, which had been filed in response to an AAO decision. The director 
subsequently withdrew his decision on motion and properly ordered that the matter be forwarded to the AAO, 
which is the office that issued the final decision that the petitioner currently seeks to have reconsidered. 
Page 3 
there is no statute or regulation that would allow the AAO the discretion to take these circumstances or any 
hardship to the beneficiary into account. The petitioner is subject to the same legal requirements regardless of 
hardships to the beneficiary. As such, the motion will be dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 
l03.5(a)(4), which states, in pertinent part, that a motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be 
dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility 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.