dismissed EB-1C Case: Wholesale Jewelry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19219403 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 12, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a wholesale jewelry company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
president and general manager under the fust preference immigrant classification for multinational 
managers or executives . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C) , 8 U.S .C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(C). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition, but then revoked that 
approval, concluding that the record did not establish, as required , that: (1) the Petitioner will employ 
the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; (2) the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; and (3) the Petitioner has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Director also determined that the Petitioner 
and the Beneficiary had willfully misrepresented material facts. We withdrew the finding of material 
misrepresentation, and issued merits decisions dismissing the Petitioner's appeal from that decision, 
and three subsequent combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner filed a fourth 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider , which we dismissed because it was untimely filed . The 
matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
In its latest motion, the Petitioner asserts that it was not responsible for the late delivery of the previous 
motion . Upon review, we will dismiss the motion . 
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 is based on factual grounds and must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened 
proceeding, and be supported by affidavits or other 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 proceeding at the 
time of the decision . 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. A motion that does not meet all 
the requirements must be dismissed . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) . 
The regulations require filing of a motion within 33 days of the date of the decision for which the 
petitioner seeks reconsideration or reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) and 103.5(b)(8). USCIS 
Leadership Guidance issued March 30, 2020, allowed for acceptance of Forms I-290B up to 60 days 
after the date of the unfavorable decision. 1 
We dismissed the Petitioner's third motion in a decision dated December 22, 2020. We received the 
Petitioner's fourth motion 72 days later, on March 4, 2021. We dismissed the motion as untimely. 
Now, in its fifth motion, the Petitioner asserts that it submitted its appeal to a shipping company on a 
timely basis, and that the untimely filing was the fault of the shipping company. 
In Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006), the Board of Immigration Appeals stated that a 
delay in delivery is not a rare or extraordinary circumstance "where the appeal was placed with an 
overnight courier service, at most, 48 hours before the filing deadline," and where the appellant has 
cited no "rare or extraordinary events that required waiting until the last day or 2 of the mandated 
filing period." Id. at 992, 993 (internal quotations omitted). 
In this instance, as in Liadov, the Petitioner "waited until the near 'eleventh hour' to place [its] appeal 
in the hands of an overnight delivery service." Id. The courier service received the motion from the 
Petitioner at 6:41 p.m. on February 19, 2021, the 59th day after we issued our decision, and the 
Petitioner has not identified any circumstances that prevented the submission of the motion until after 
business hours on the final weekday before the deadline. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) does not permit any delay in filing a motion to reconsider, 
but a delay in filing a motion to reopen may be excused in our discretion where the petitioner 
demonstrates that the delay was reasonable and was beyond the petitioner's control. In this instance, 
the Petitioner has not established that a favorable exercise of this discretion is in order. The new 
evidence submitted in the fourth motion did not show good cause for reopening the proceeding. 
Some of the evidence in the fourth motion duplicated earlier submissions; the Petitioner resubmitted 
this material for reference. The most relevant new evidence is a series of letters signed by various 
New York-area jewelry wholesalers in mid-February 2021. The Petitioner submitted these letters in 
an effort to establish that customs paperwork is routinely prepared in the name of the company 
president, even if that official is not directly involved in interacting with customs officials. 
Each letter includes similar or, in some cases, identical language regarding the claimed practice, 
sometimes even including the same misspelling of "personnel" as "personals." The similar language 
in the submitted letters undermines their probative value, because it "suggests that the letters were all 
prepared by the same person and calls into question the persuasive value of the letters' 
content." Hamal v. US. Dep 't of Homeland Security, No. 19-2534, slip op. at 8, n.3 (D.D.C. June 8, 
2021). It is significant that we raised this same issue in an earlier decision, issued in October 2018, 
regarding other letters, stating that the shared language affected their credibility. 
1 See https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-expands-flexibility-for-responding-to-uscis-requests for the original March 
30, 2020 announcement. This flexibility was later extended several times. 
2 
Given the above, timely delivery of the fourth motion would not likely have resulted in approval of 
the underlying petition. The evidence submitted in that motion does not show good cause for 
reopening the proceeding. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration and has not 
overcome the grounds for dismissal of its prior motion. Therefore, we will dismiss the latest motion. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed. 
3