Date of Decision: April 28, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Advertising and Marketing
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Advertising and Marketing
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Summarily Dismissed
Motion Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, an advertising and marketing company, sought to employ the beneficiary as its President under the EB-1C classification for multinational executives or managers. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity.
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a Form I-290B, asserting that the denial contradicted the facts and law. However, the petitioner failed to submit a brief or any additional evidence within the specified timeframe, leading to the summary dismissal of the appeal. The petitioner then filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the decision, but the AAO dismissed the motion, stating that the petitioner did not provide new facts or evidence to establish that the prior decision to summarily dismiss the appeal was erroneous.
Key Issues
The primary issues were whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity abroad and would continue to be employed in such a capacity in the United States. Additionally, the AAO reviewed whether the petitioner’s motion to reopen and reconsider introduced new facts or evidence to justify a reconsideration of the prior decision.
USCIS Findings
The AAO found that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required for the EB-1C classification. The petitioner failed to submit any supporting documents or evidence during the appeal process, which led to the summary dismissal of the appeal. Furthermore, the motion to reopen and reconsider did not provide any new facts or pertinent legal arguments to warrant a reconsideration of the prior decision.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner indicated that a brief and additional evidence would be submitted on appeal, but none were provided. The motion to reopen and reconsider also failed to introduce any new evidence or legal arguments.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when filing appeals and motions. The lack of timely submitted evidence and the failure to address the basis for the summary dismissal contributed to the dismissal of the motion.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed. The petitioner did not successfully provide new evidence or arguments that would have changed the outcome of the previous appeal.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
