Date of Decision: January 3, 2025
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Cellular Phone Retail
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Cellular Phone Retailer
Field: Cellular Phone Retail
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Motion Outcome: Third Motion to Reconsider Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a cellular phone retailer, sought to employ the beneficiary as its controller under the EB-1C multinational executive classification. The Texas Service Center denied the petition in January 2023, concluding that the beneficiary did not meet the requirements for qualifying foreign employment or proposed executive capacity in the U.S. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal in August 2023, a motion to reconsider in March 2024, and a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider in August 2024. The petitioner then filed a third motion to reconsider, which is the subject of this decision.
Key Issues
- Qualifying Employment Abroad:
The beneficiary did not work abroad for at least one year during the required three-year period preceding the petition’s July 2022 filing. The beneficiary was already in the U.S. since May 2019, and this issue was not adequately addressed. - Proposed U.S. Executive Role:
The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary’s proposed U.S. position met the executive capacity standard. The second motion failed to address this point, waiving the issue, and the latest motion repeated old evidence without resolving it. - Ownership and Qualifying Relationship:
The petitioner’s evidence regarding ownership and the qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign companies remained incomplete and inconsistent. Conflicting tax returns, multiple versions of ownership documents, and a reused partnership agreement failed to resolve the discrepancies. - Failure to Meet Motion Requirements:
The petitioner’s third motion did not demonstrate that the prior decision misapplied law or policy. It merely restated prior arguments and resubmitted previously reviewed evidence without new facts or legal basis.
USCIS Findings
- The petitioner did not show qualifying foreign employment within the required time frame.
- The U.S. executive role was not established as required.
- Ownership evidence remained inconsistent and unreliable.
- The motion did not satisfy the requirements for reconsideration under applicable regulations.
Supporting Evidence
- 2021 partnership agreement (resubmitted)
- Conflicting versions of tax returns
- Organizational charts dated 2022 and 2024
- Written statements of the beneficiary’s duties
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that a motion to reconsider is not an opportunity to refile the same arguments without resolving prior issues. The decision underscores that petitioners must address all identified deficiencies with clear and consistent evidence.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to reconsider dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy and did not resolve issues regarding qualifyint abroad, the executive role, or the ownership structure.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
