PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
MotionEB-2 · Motion to reopen & reconsider

Chief executive officer

Business & finance · decided 2019-12-02 · NSC · DEC022019_02B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

The Director concluded that, contrary to the Act and Department of Homeland Security regulations, the Petitioner did not demonstrate its proposed employment of the Beneficiary in an executive or managerial capacity, or her work abroad in such a role. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. See in text
  • ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. See in text
  • FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (3)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services InRe: 6842315 · Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision

    Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office Date: DEC. 2, 2019

    Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Multinational Manager or Executive The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer under the first- preference, immigrant visa classification for multinational executives and managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C).

    The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, contrary to the Act and Department of Homeland Security regulations, the Petitioner did not demonstrate its proposed employment of the Beneficiary in an executive or managerial capacity, or her work abroad in such a role. We summarily dismissed the company's appeal.

    The matter is before us again on the Petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider. Upon review, we will dismiss the motions.

    Motion Criteria

    A motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence. 8C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). In contrast, a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision misapplied law or policy based on the record at that time. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). If motions meet these requirements and overcome the prior denial grounds, we may grant them.

    The Petitioner's Motions

    We found that the Petitioner's appeal did not allege an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. The appeal indicated that the Petitioner would submit a written brief or additional evidence within 30 days of the filing. But we did not receive any submission from the company during that period. Because the appeal did not specify its legal or factual basis, we had to summarily dismiss it. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v).

    The Petitioner's motion to reopen contains additional evidence, including copies of the company's federal income tax returns for 2017, and a notice and letter issued under the Beneficiary's name in her role as vice president of the Petitioner's affiliate in China. The motion to reconsider argues for the petition's approval, citing a 2014 non-precedent decision of ours. The new evidence and p. 2 argument, however, do not overcome the grounds of our appellate dismissal. The evidence and argument do not demonstrate that the Petitioner's appeal identified its legal or factual basis.

    Conclusion

    The Petitioner's motions do not establish that we summarily dismissed its appeal in error. We will therefore affirm our prior decision.

    ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.

    FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.