remanded EB-1C Case: Auto Parts Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF O-C-P- CORP. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : OCT. 3, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , an auto parts distributor , seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its managing 
director under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. 
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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not establish , 
as required , that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity ; 
and (2) the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity . The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider the Director's decision . 
The Director denied the combined motion based on these findings: (1) the motion did not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reopen because it did not include new evidence that established the 
Beneficiary's eligibility ; and (2) the motion did not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider 
because the Petitioner did not cite pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the denial was based on 
an incorrect application oflaw or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record 
at the time of the initial decision. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred "by not giving due consideration to the 
previous! y submitted and new evidence presented in [the] motions, and incorrect! y applied the relevant 
case law and regulations ." 
We will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for the entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis. 
The Petitioner states , on appeal: "The Director erroneously denied the Petitioner's Motion to Reopen 
and Reconsider , and the underlying [petition] ." The denial of the underlying petition, however, is not 
properly before us on appeal. The Petitioner did not appeal the initial denial before the 33-day deadline 
set by regulation (8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a)(2)(i) and 103.8(b)). The Petitioner's appeal of the motion 
denial is timely, but that motion denial did not reset the clock to appeal the underlying decision. 
Matter of O-C-P- Corp. 
As a result, the matter before us on appeal is a decision on the Petitioner's combined motion, rather 
than the merits of the underlying petition. The only issue before us is whether the Director properly 
found that the motion did not meet applicable requirements. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion 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). 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In the first denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had submitted "a set of broad job 
responsibilities ... which fail to convey an understanding of what the beneficiary would actually be 
doing on a daily basis." On motion, the Petitioner submitted an expanded description of the 
Beneficiary's former position abroad and a "Strategic Plan" intended to provide a "better 
understanding [of] the scope of work and impact on the overall organization" in his U.S. position. 
In denying the motion, the Director stated that the expanded list of the Beneficiary's foreign duties 
"give further insight into the beneficiary's heightened degree of a managerial capacity," but did not 
say what effect this further insight had on the Director's conclusions regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's U.S. duties, the Director stated that the "Strategic Plan" listed "duties 
which are comprised of both managerial and non-managerial duties" and therefore did not establish 
"that the beneficiary will serve in a managerial and executive capacity." The Director did not elaborate 
on this key finding. The presence of some non-managerial duties is permissible, as long as the duties 
are primarily qualifying. Because the Director did not identify the non-managerial duties or find that 
the non-managerial duties predominate, the Director's analysis was incomplete. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
In denying the motion, the Director found that the Petitioner "cite[ d] non-precedent decisions." Some 
of the cited decisions are unpublished, non-precedent appellate decisions ( or unpublished district court 
decisions with no weight as precedent), but the Petitioner also cited one precedent decision (Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, (AAO 2010)) and an adopted decision, binding on employees of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 
14, 2016)). The Director, therefore, erred in finding that the Petitioner only cited non-precedent 
decisions. Whether those precedent decisions support the Petitioner's overall argument is a separate 
question beyond the scope of this appellate adjudication. 
The second decision also included a new finding that the Beneficiary's direct subordinates, some of 
whom have subordinates of their own, "do not primarily supervise or manage other employees but 
rather perform the day to day operations of the organization." The Director did not further elaborate 
or explain this finding. 
2 
Matter of O-C-P- Corp. 
The Director did not folly address the merits of the combined motion to reopen and reconsider. We 
are remanding the matter so the Director may make the initial determination as to whether the new 
evidence and legal arguments overcome the grounds for denial. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of O-C-P- Corp., ID# 6197490 (AAO Oct. 3, 2019) 
3