dismissed EB-1C Case: Wholesale Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 24, 2025 In Re: 37223018 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a wholesale distributor, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a manager 
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 a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner omitted 
required initial evidence. We summarily dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, finding that it did not 
specify any erroneous legal conclusion or factual statement in the Director's decision, and dismissed 
a subsequent motion to reopen. Our previous decisions are incorporated here by reference. The matter 
is now before us on a second motion to reopen. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, we will only review the 
latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy 
these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 
I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the 
outcome). 
In dismissing the Petitioner's first motion to reopen, we determined that the Petitioner did not show 
we had erred in summarily dismissing its appeal. In the alternative, we noted that the Petitioner's 
submissions on motion, which consisted of Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion and a letter 
from the Beneficiary, did not demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit because the record still 
was devoid of required initial evidence of: 
• the company's U.S. job offer to the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; 
• the company's qualifying relationship with his foreign employer; 
• the company's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage; 
• his employment abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year during the 
three years before his nonimmigrant U.S. admission; or 
• the organization's continuing business operations outside the United States. 
In the current motion, the Petitioner does not address our reason for dismissing its first motion to 
reopen but rather only discusses our alternative observation that the submissions on motion did not 
include required initial evidence. The Petitioner repeats its prior assertion that although the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer had closed over two years ago due to the effects of the COVID-19 
pandemic, the Petitioner had nevertheless generated more than $30 million in revenues in 2021 as well 
as jobs for U.S. workers, and therefore requests U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
to reverse the denial of the underlying petition and "allow" the company to continue its U.S. operations 
and employ the Beneficiary. We note that these same assertions were previously made both on appeal 
and in the first motion to reopen. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence with the current motion, including a copy 
of a previously submitted tax return and copies of the Beneficiary's educational credentials, the 
Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. Because 
the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have 
no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the 
underlying petition remains denied. 
For the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the motion to reopen requirements 
under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2