dismissed EB-1C Case: Wholesale Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-G-USA LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 15,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wholesaler of bags, accessories, and other merchandise, seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as its director under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, citing several grounds for denial. The 
Petitioner appealed the denial the petition, but did not identify any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal; therefore, we summarily dismissed the appeal pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.3(a)(l )(v). 1 
The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider our decision. We will deny the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
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. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet these 
requirements. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
1 
The Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, included this instruction: "On a separate sheet of paper, you must 
provide a statement regarding the basis for the appeal or motion." The Petitioner did not provide this statement. The 
Petitioner indicated that it would submit a brief, additional evidence, or both to the AAO within 30 days. The record 
does not include any supplementary submission from the Petitioner. 
On March 25,2016, the Petitioner filed a new Form 1-140 petition with supporting evidence. This filing occurred during 
the requested 30-day period, but it constitutes a new and separate filing rather than a supplement to an existing appeal. 
The new petition acknowledged the existence of a pending appeal, but the accompanying letter did not indicate that the 
submitted materials were intended to supplement that appeal. Instead, the Petitioner submitted them in support of the 
new petition, which remains pending. Because the various filings are all part of a single master file, the Nebraska 
Service Center cannot adjudicate the new petition while it is in the possession of the Administrative Appeals Office. 
Matter of V-G- USA LLC 
It is important to note that the motion relates to the most recent decision in the proceeding. In this 
case, that decision is our summary dismissal, issued in June 2016. The Petitioner's motion, 
however, does not address the summary dismissal at all. Instead, the Petitioner submits a brief 
contesting the grounds for denial listed in the Director's January 2016 denial notice, and evidence 
intended to overcome those grounds. 2 
A mq!ion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at 
the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The Petitioner has not demonstrated, or even 
claimed, that our summary dismissal was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at that time. 
Therefore, the motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
Although the motion includes new evidence, the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence 
overcomes, or is relevant to, our summary dismissal ofthe Petitioner's appeal. As explained above, 
the decision under review on motion is the summary dismissal, not the denial of the underlying 
petition. The Petitioner's new evidence does not show that the Petitioner had submitted a timely and 
substantive supplement to the appeal. The only relevant question at this stage of the proceeding is 
whether we erred in summarily dismissing the appeal. The evidence submitted on motion does not 
address that question. 
The Petitioner's filing does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to 
reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofV-G-USA LLC, ID# 476040 (AAO June 15, 2017) 
2 If we were to treat this filing as a motion on the Director's decision, rather than on our summary dismissal, the motion 
still could not be granted. A motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the decision for which the Petitioner 
seeks reconsideration, and a motion to reopen must also be filed within 30 days unless the Petitioner can demonstrate 
that the delay was reasonable and beyond the Petitioner's control. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). The Petitioner filed this 
motion more than five months after the Director denied the petition. The Petitioner submitted additional evidence within 
30 days, but only in the context of a new petition which is not a part of the Petitioner's appeal. 
2