dismissed EB-1C Case: Wholesale Trade

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandlmmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve..N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: 9{{ 7 q 79j7 OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveor ManagerPursuant
to Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If youbelievetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelaw in reachingits decision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen
in accordancewiththeinstructionsonFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with afeeof $630.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file anymotion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled
within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The preferencevia petition was deniedby the director, NebraskaService
Center. Thepetitionerappealedthematterto theAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO), where
the appealwasdismissed.The matteris now beforethe AAO on a motionto reconsider.The
motionwill bedismissedandthedirector'sandtheAAO's decisionswill beundisturbed.
Thepetitioneris a limited liability companythat wasformedin the Stateof Washington.The
petitioner seeksto employ the beneficiary as its executivedirector. Accordingly, the petitioner
endeavorsto classifythe beneficiaryas an employment-basedimmigrantpursuantto section
203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asa
multinationalexecutiveor manager.
The directordeniedthe petitionon May 18, 2009,concludingthat: (1) the petitionerfailed to
establishthatthebeneficiarywouldbeemployedin theUnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerial
or executivecapacity;and,(2) thepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiarywasemployed
abroadin aqualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.
Thepetitionersubsequentlyfiled an appealwhich the AAO dismissed,affirming the director's
originalfindings.
OnNovember30, 2011,thepetitionerfiled FormI-290B andstatesthat it is filing a motionto
reconsider,andabrief and/oradditionalevidenceis attached.
As a preliminarymatter,the AAO notesthat while an appealanda motion areboth remedial
actions, the legal purpose of an appeal is entirely distinct from that of a motion to
reopen/reconsider.The AAO reviewsappealson a de novobasis,allowing the petitionerto
supplementthe record with any evidenceor documentationthat the filing part feels may
overcomethe groundsfor the underlyingadversedecision. SeeSoltanev. DOJ, 381F.3d 143,
145(3d Cir. 2004). The AAO's review of a motion to reopenor a motion to reconsideris
limited to evidencethat fits the specific criteria discussedat 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(2)and
103.5(a)(3),respectively. Submitting evidencethat does not meet the regulatory criteria
specifiedat8C.F.R.§§103.5(a)(2)or 103.5(a)(3),dependingonthetypeof motionthepetitioner
hasfiled, will not sufficeevenif suchevidencemay haveovercomethe groundsfor denialif it
havebeensubmittedon appeal.
Thepetitioner'sassertionsdo not satisfytherequirementsof a motionto reconsider.8 C.F.R.§
103.5(a)(3)states,in pertinentpart:
A motionto reconsidermuststatethereasonsforreconsiderationandbesupported
by anypertinentprecedentdecisionsto establishthatthedecisionwasbasedon an
incorrectapplicationof law or Servicepolicy. A motionto reconsidera decision
on anapplicationor petitionmust,whenfiled,alsoestablishthatthedecisionwas
incorrectbasedontheevidenceofrecordatthetimeof theinitialdecision.
On motion,thepetitionersubmitsa brief that "explainsthe circumstancesandtimelinethat has
broughtus to our currentsituation." The petitionerexplainedthat the beneficiary'sforeign
Page3
employerwasin thebusinessof tradingnewsprintandwoodproductsandit decidedto operatea
subsidiary in the U.S. to "import American newsprints and recycled papers to China." The
petitioneralsoexplainedthattheU.S.companyhadto shutdownandthepetitionerpurchaseda
glassvaseandceramicwholesalecompanyin January2006. Thepetitioneralsoprovidedabrief
descriptionof anexpansionplan it hasfor the future. Thepetitioneralsoprovideda discussion
of the"predictionof theeffectof adenialdecision,"suchaslossof jobs, lossof investmentsand
lossof inventory.
BoththeDirectorandAAO provideddetailedstatementsof thegroundsfor denialanddismissal
andcitedto the specificprovisionsof theregulationsasa basisfor thedecisions. A reviewof
therecordandtheadversedecisionsindicatesthatthedirectorandtheAAO properlyappliedthe
statuteandregulationsto the petitioner'scase.Both the directorandthe AAO's decisionshave
clearly outlined the missinginformationor inconsistentinformationand documentation,and
explainedthattherecordhasinsufficientevidenceto establisheligibility for thebenefitsought.
On motion,the petitionerdoesnot establishthat theAAO's decisionwasbasedon an incorrect
applicationof law or Servicepolicy. Instead,the petitionerprovideda historyof its business
operations;anexplanationof investmentsmadeby thebeneficiaryin the UnitedStates;andthe
petitioner'sopinionof thenegativeimpactsthevisadenialwouldhaveon thepetitionerandthe
beneficiary. Thebrief doesnot provideinformationor evidencethat wouldestablisha basisfor
a favorabledecision on the motion to reconsider. Going on record without supporting
documentaryevidenceis not sufficient for purposesof meetingthe burdenof proof in these
proceedings.Matterof Soffici,22I&N Dec.158,165(Comm'r 1998)(citingMatterof Treasure
Craft of California, 14I&N Dec. 190(Reg.Comm'r 1972)).
The Form I-140 and the supportingevidencestatedthat the petitionerwas engagedin the
purchaseandexportof papercommodities.On motion,the petitionerexplainedthat its initial
businessoperationof trading newsprint and wood productsdid not succeed,and that the
petitionersubsequentlypurchaseda new companyin January2006. The new companywas
engagedin the wholesaleof glassvasesandceramics. The FormI-140 was filed in January
2007, a yearafter the petitionerpurchaseda new companyandbegana whole new business
operation.TheI-140petitiondoesnot mentionthenewcompanyatall. It is incumbentuponthe
petitionerto resolveanyinconsistenciesin therecordby independentobjectiveevidence.Any
attemptto explainor reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not sufficeunlessthepetitionersubmits
competentobjectiveevidencepointingto wherethetruth lies. Matterof Ho, 191&N Dec.582,
591-92(BIA 1988). Furthermore,a petitionermustestablisheligibility at the time of filing; a
petition cannotbe approvedat a future dateafter the petitioner or beneficiary becomeseligible
underanewsetof facts.MatterofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.45,49(Comm'r 1971).
On motion,a petitionercannotoffer a newpositionto the beneficiary,or materiallychangea
position'stitle, its level of authoritywithin the organizationalhierarchy,or the associatedjob
responsibilities.Thepetitionermustestablishthat the positionofferedto the beneficiarywhen
the petition was filed merits classificationas a managerialor executiveposition.Matter of
Michelin Tire Corp.,17I&N Dec.248,249 (Reg.Comm'r 1978). A petitionermay not make
Page4
material changesto a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS
requirements.SeeMatter ofIzummi,22I&N Dec.169,176(Assoc.Comm'r 1998).
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenis on thepetitionerto establisheligibility for thebenefit
sought.SeeMatterofBrantigan, 11I&N Dec.493(BIA 1966). Thepetitionermustproveby a
preponderanceof evidencethatthebeneficiaryis fully qualifiedfor thebenefitsought.Matterof
Martinez,21I&N Dec.1035,1036(BIA 1997);MatterofE-M-,20I&N Dec.77,79-80(Comm.
1989);Matter ofSooHoo, 11I&N Dec.151(BIA 1965).
The "preponderanceof the evidence"standardrequiresthat the evidencedemonstratethat the
applicant'sclaim is "probablytrue," wherethe determinationof "truth" is madebasedon the
factualcircumstancesof eachindividualcase.Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec.77,79-80(Comm.
1989). In evaluatingthe evidence,Matter of E-M- alsostatedthat "[t]ruth is to be determined
not by thequantityof evidencealonebutby itsquality."Id. Thus,in adjudicatingthe application
pursuantto thepreponderanceof theevidencestandard,thedirectormustexamineeachpieceof
evidencefor relevance,probativevalue,andcredibility,bothindividually andwithin thecontext
of thetotality of theevidence,to determinewhetherthefactto beprovenis probablytrue.
Evenif the directorhassomedoubtasto thetruth, if thepetitionersubmitsrelevant,probative,
andcredibleevidencethat leadsthedirectorto believethatthe claimis "probablytrue" or "more
likely than not," the applicantor petitionerhas satisfiedthe standardof proof. SeeU.S.v.
Cardozo-Fonseca,480 U.S. 421 (1987)(defining"more likely than not" asa greaterthan 50
percentprobabilityof somethingoccurring). If the directorcanarticulatea materialdoubt,it is
appropriatefor the director to either requestadditionalevidenceor, if that doubt leadsthe
directorto believethattheclaimis probablynottrue,denytheapplicationor petition.
Here,the submittedevidencedoesnot meetthe preponderanceof the evidencestandard. As
notedin thedirector'sdecisionandtheAAO's decision,thepetitionerdid not providesufficient
evidenceto establishthatthepetitionermeetstheregulatoryrequirementsto establisheligibility
for theI-140immigrantvisa.
Theburdenof proofin theseproceedingsrestssolelywith thepetitioner. Section291of theAct,
8 U.S.C.1361. Thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4)statesthat
"[a] motionthat doesnot meetapplicablerequirementsshallbe dismissed." Accordingly,the
motionwill bedismissed,theproceedingswill notbereconsidered,andthepreviousdecisionsof
thedirectorandtheAAO will notbedisturbed.
ORDER: Themotionisdismissed.Thepetitionisdenied.