Date of Decision: February 24, 2025
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Executives or Managers)
Field of Expertise: Wholesale Distribution
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Manager
Field: Wholesale Distribution
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Summarily dismissed
Motion Outcome: Second Motion to Reopen Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, a wholesale distributor, sought to employ the beneficiary as a manager under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers.
The Texas Service Center denied the petition due to the petitioner’s failure to submit required initial evidence. The petitioner’s appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to identify specific factual or legal errors in the denial. A subsequent motion to reopen was also dismissed. The current decision addresses a second motion to reopen, which the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed on the grounds that it did not meet the standard for reopening.
Key Issues
The first issue was the petitioner’s continued failure to address the reason its previous motion was denied. Instead of presenting new facts or a legal challenge to the AAO’s prior findings, the petitioner reiterated claims already made on appeal and in the first motion, including assertions about revenue and job creation.
The second issue involved the absence of required initial evidence. The AAO noted in its prior decisions—and reiterated in the current one—that the record remained devoid of five key evidentiary elements necessary to establish EB-1C eligibility: (1) a qualifying U.S. job offer, (2) evidence of a qualifying corporate relationship with the foreign entity, (3) proof of the U.S. company’s ability to pay the proffered wage, (4) documentation showing the beneficiary’s qualifying foreign employment for one year within the three years prior to U.S. admission, and (5) evidence of the foreign company’s continued operations.
The third issue was the petitioner’s reliance on previously submitted materials. While the current motion included a copy of a previously filed tax return and the beneficiary’s educational credentials, the submission did not establish new facts that could alter the outcome of the proceeding, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
The fourth issue was procedural: the scope of the motion was limited to the AAO’s prior dismissal of the first motion to reopen. Because the petitioner did not provide new facts relevant to that decision, the motion was procedurally deficient and could not serve as the basis for revisiting the underlying petition denial.
The fifth issue was the closure of the foreign employer. The petitioner acknowledged that the beneficiary’s foreign employer had ceased operations more than two years ago due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but did not provide legal justification or documentation showing that the beneficiary met the statutory requirement of qualifying foreign employment during the relevant three-year period.
USCIS Findings
The Administrative Appeals Office dismissed the motion based on the following findings:
- The motion did not provide new facts challenging the basis for the dismissal of the previous motion to reopen.
- The petitioner continued to omit required initial evidence essential for establishing EB-1C eligibility.
- The evidence submitted with the motion (educational credentials and a tax return) was previously reviewed and did not satisfy the regulatory standard under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
- The petitioner’s assertions about revenue generation and job creation did not substitute for the required statutory elements of qualifying employment and corporate relationship.
- The foreign employer’s closure further undermined the claim of qualifying foreign employment.
Supporting Evidence
- Copy of previously submitted tax return
- Beneficiary’s educational credentials
- Form I-290B and motion letters
- Prior appeal and motion decisions
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that motions to reopen must introduce new facts with probative evidence that could reasonably change the outcome of the case. Merely resubmitting previously reviewed documents or repeating general claims of eligibility does not meet this standard. Additionally, eligibility for EB-1C must be proven at the time of filing, and closure of the foreign entity without prior qualifying employment disqualifies the beneficiary under statutory criteria.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to reopen dismissed
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the regulatory threshold for reopening the case. It failed to address prior dismissal grounds, submitted no new material facts, and remained deficient in essential eligibility documentation. The underlying petition remains denied.
