remanded EB-1C Case: Financial Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-C- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 26, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a financial consulting service provider, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary 
as its president and chief executive officer under the immigrant classification of a multinational 
executive or manager. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C). The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Petitioner filed a 
joint motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider the Director's decision. The Director reopened the 
proceeding and affirmed the denial of the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The 
Director's decision will be withdrawn and the matter will be remanded to the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center for the entry of a new decision. 
I. ISSUE 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not discuss the merits of the petition or the grounds for the Director's 
first decision issued on April 6, 2015. Instead, the Petitioner's appeal focuses on a procedural issue. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director erred, because the Director's second decision granted the 
motion to reopen but did not address the concurrent motion to reconsider. The two types of motions 
are distinct and have different requirements. A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be 
proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 
C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application 
or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of 
record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The Director's second decision, issued June 26, 2015, addressed only the Petitioner's motion to 
reopen. The brief submitted in support of the Petitioner's motion to reconsider included several 
pages of discussion which the Director did not address. The Petitioner asserts that the decision of 
June 26, 2015 was, therefore, deficient. We agree. If the Director finds that the Petitioner's motion 
did not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider, the Director must explain that conclusion. 
Matter of T-C- Corp. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The matter will be remanded to the Director for consideration of the Petitioner's motion to 
reconsider. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). This burden remains on the Petitioner. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director, Nebraska Service Center is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded to the Director, Nebraska Service Center, for further proceedings consistent 
with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ofT-C- Corp., ID# 15779 (AAO Feb. 26, 2016) 
2