Date of Decision: January 13, 2025
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Wedding and Event Planning
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: Wedding and Event Planning
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Motion Outcome: Motion to Reopen and Motion to Reconsider Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a wedding and event planning company, sought to employ the beneficiary as its general manager under the EB-1C multinational executive classification. The Texas Service Center denied the petition for not establishing that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. The AAO dismissed the appeal on the same grounds and noted that the record did not prove a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer. The petitioner then filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider, which are the subject of this decision.
Key Issues
- Proposed U.S. Executive Role:
The petitioner did not address the specific conclusions from the AAO’s prior decision. Instead, the motion repeated arguments already considered, failing to show how the beneficiary’s role met the executive capacity requirements. - Failure to State New Facts or Legal Error:
The motion to reconsider did not demonstrate that the prior decision misapplied law or policy. The motion to reopen did not present new facts supported by credible evidence that would change the outcome. - Qualifying Relationship:
The petitioner’s evidence did not resolve inconsistencies regarding ownership. Federal tax returns identified the beneficiary as sole owner, contradicting claims of foreign ownership or common control. The petitioner provided an affidavit and the foreign entity’s deed of partnership but did not reconcile conflicts or submit amended tax filings to support its claims.
USCIS Findings
- The petitioner did not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider because it failed to address the previous decision’s findings or show legal error.
- The motion to reopen did not present new, credible facts that could change the outcome.
- The claimed parent-subsidiary or affiliate relationship remained unproven due to inconsistent ownership documentation.
Supporting Evidence
- Affidavit from the beneficiary about ownership
- Foreign entity’s partnership deed
- Previously submitted federal tax returns
- Brief largely copied from prior filings
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that repeating the same arguments is not sufficient for reconsideration. Discrepancies in ownership must be clarified with consistent and verifiable documentation, and new evidence must be material and credible.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to Reopen and Motion to Reconsider dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to prove an incorrect application of law or policy and did not resolve the issues related to the executive role and qualifying relationship.
