dismissed EB-1C Case: Weather Instruments

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
· DATE: MAY 22,20 18 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l-140 , IMMIGRA NT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an exporter of weather instruments, seeks to permanently emp loy the Beneficiary as its 
general manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
manager s. See Immigration and Nation ality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1 )(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 Texa s Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary had been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, iri a managerial or executive capaci ty. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal 
and denied a motion to reconsider and a later motion to reopen. The Petitioner then filed a second 
appeal, which we rejected because there is no provision allowing a petitioner to appeal a decision by the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The Petitioner has now filed a motion to reconsider the 
rejection of the ~ppeal. 1 
We will deny the motion. 
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 
Service 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. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3). 
The Petitioner raises two points on motion, neither of which estab lishes that we acted incorr ectly by 
rejecting the appeal. The Petitioner quotes paragraph 10.15 of the Adjudicator's Field Manual, 
which states: "The case law and regulator y guidelines provide a framework to assist in arriving at 
decisions which are consistent and fair, regardless of where the case is adjudicated or by whom." 
The Petitioner, however, does not esta blish or explain how we did not act within that framework. 
1 The record contain s a pendin g Form 1-140 petition, receipt number which the Petitioner tiled on 
May 30, 2017. The Director has not had an opportunity to adjudicate the newer petition , because the file has remained at 
our office for the adjudicatio n of the multipl e motions and appeals on the earlier petition 
Matter of C- Inc 
The aforementioned case law and regulations make no provision for a petitioner to appeal a decision 
by the AAO, and therefore the rejection of the appeal does not violate or deny the Petitioner's right 
to due process. 
We gave the Petitioner's initial appeal full consideration on the merits in our appellate decision 
issued in October 2015. We considered additional substantive issues in our decisions relating to the 
Petitioner's first and second motions. 
The Petitioner cites."C.F.R. 103-Powers and Duties." This is an incomplete citation, so broad that 
we cannot determine its meaning. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § l 03 cover several topics, including 
appeals and motions, but not "Powers and Duties," and they do not grant us unlimited scope of 
appellate review or require us to accept appeals on cases that we have already decided. 
The Petitioner also cites Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. US., 566 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir. 
2009), which discusses the circumstances under which a federal appeals court can find a government 
agency's action to be arbitrary and capricious. The Petitioner identifies no arbitrary and capricious 
action by this office, and therefore the Petitioner has not established the relevance of the cited case to 
the proceeding at hand. 
Apart from the above citations, the Petitioner states, without elaboration, that the Beneficiary "meets 
the criteria of [a] managerial position." This unsupported statement does not establish that our 
decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Simply 
expressing disagreement with our prior finding does not constitute good cause for reconsideration, 
nor does it establish that our decision was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise improper. 
Also, the nature of the Beneficiary's employment was not a factor in our rejection notice from 
March 2017. Rather, that is an issue we addressed in earlier decisions. The Petitioner must file a 
motion to reconsider within 33 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider. 2 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i). The Petitioner filed this latest motion in April 2017, more than 33 days after we 
issued our substantive decisions relating to the Beneficiary's employment. '!;he tiling of the latest 
motion does not open the entire proceeding to de novo review. This motion to reconsider is 
restricted to the most recent decision. The Petitioner must establish that that decision was in error 
before we will delve further into the history of the proceeding. For the reasons discussed, the current 
motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion is denied. 
Cite. as Matter ofC- Inc, ID# 568392 (AAO May 22, 2018) 
2 This time period includes three days added for service by mail. 
2