dismissed EB-1C Case: Unknown

"'6' idenrr- jm2 r?:L:a .ieicied to 
r. 
prevej:l,t c f car 91 uriq;mmm-ted 
invasion of pei%~.mi privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 07 1 17 52964 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV -0 3 ~y~b 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
, ' LIN07 117 52964 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center, on June 
22, 2007. On July 11, 2007, the petitioner appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO), and, on February 14, 2008, the AAO dismissed the appeal. On March 14, 2008, the petitioner again 
filed an appeal with the AAO. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner endeavored to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act' as a multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition concluding 
that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been or will be employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on July 11, 2007, and the AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal 
in a decision dated February 14,2008. 
On March 14, 2008, counsel for the petitioner filed the instant appeal. Counsel indicated on Form I-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, that he is filing an appeal, and that a brief andlor additional evidence will be 
submitted within 30 days. On Fonn I-290B, counsel claims that his brief will rely in part on an unpublished 
AAO decision, Matter of Irish Daily Board, (AAO Nov. 16, 1989), and the Foreign Affairs 
Manual (FAM) in arguing that the director should have classified the beneficiary as a manager of an essential 
function. Counsel submitted a brief to the AAO within 30 days. 
The petitioner's appeal must be rejected. The AAO does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over AAO 
decisions. The AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters described at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.1 (f)(3)(iii) 
(as in effect on February 28, 2003). 
 See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1; 8 C.F.R. 
 103.3(a)(iv). 
Accordingly, as the appeal is not properly before the AAO, it was not properly filed and must be rejected. 8 
C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). 
Furthermore, it should be noted that the petitioner did have the option of filing a motion to reopen or 
reconsider the AAO's most recent decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. However, the petitioner's appeal 
does not meet the requirements of a motion. As noted above, the petitioner stated that a brief would be 
submitted in 30 days. Although the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(vii) states that a petitioner may be 
permitted additional time to submit a brief to the AAO in connection with an appeal, no such provision 
applies to a motion. The brief and any new evidence must be submitted with the motion. See 8 C.F.R $5 
103.5(a)(2) and (3). Therefore, the AAO would not consider the brief even if the appeal had been properly 
filed instead as a motion. 
Finally, the legal bases for the appeal given in the Form I-290B, i.e., an unpublished AAO decision and the 
FAM, do not constitute "pertinent precedent decisions" which could have established that the AAO's decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3). While 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c) 
provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 
employees in the administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act, unpublished decisions are not 
similarly binding. Likewise, the FAM is not binding upon CIS. See Avena v. INS, 989 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 
1997); Matter of Bosuego, 17 I&N 125 (BIA 1979). Accordingly, the appeal, even if it could have been 
treated as a motion, would have been dismissed for failing to meet applicable requirements. 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.