Date of Decision: November 28, 2022
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Childcare Center
Beneficiary Information
Profession: President
Field: Childcare Center
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Case Overview
The petitioner, operating as a childcare center, 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 did not establish a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary’s former foreign employer, nor did it demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad or would be employed in such a capacity in the United States. Additionally, the petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the beneficiary’s proffered wage.
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) previously dismissed the appeal, focusing on the petitioner’s failure to demonstrate the beneficiary’s managerial or executive capacity abroad. The petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider, which was also dismissed by the AAO. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the petitioner demonstrated that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad, which is a prerequisite for EB-1C classification. The AAO had previously determined that the petitioner’s evidence, including the beneficiary’s job description, was deficient in establishing such capacity. The petitioner’s motion to reopen did not introduce new facts or evidence but reiterated previously submitted information.
USCIS Findings
The AAO found that the petitioner failed to provide new facts or supporting evidence that would warrant reopening the case. The petitioner’s motion to reopen primarily reiterated arguments and evidence that had already been considered and dismissed by the AAO in its prior decisions. The AAO concluded that the petitioner did not meet the requirements for reopening the case and, therefore, dismissed the motion.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner referred to previously submitted evidence, including statutory and regulatory criteria for multinational managers and executives, job descriptions, and organizational charts. However, the AAO found that this evidence did not address the deficiencies noted in the initial denial or provide new information that would justify reopening the case.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized the importance of providing new, substantive evidence when filing a motion to reopen. The failure to introduce new facts or adequately address the issues raised in the initial denial led to the dismissal of the motion.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen was dismissed. The petitioner failed to provide new facts or evidence that would justify reopening the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
