Date of Decision: April 25, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: Motel Management Services
Beneficiary Information
Profession: Vice President
Field: Motel Management Services
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Motion to Reopen/Reconsider Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a provider of motel management services, sought to permanently employ the beneficiary as its vice 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 that: (1) the beneficiary would be employed in the U.S. in a managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity.
After the initial denial, the petitioner filed multiple combined motions to reopen and reconsider, all of which were denied or rejected by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). In its sixth combined motion, the petitioner submitted a brief and additional materials similar to those provided in previous motions. The petitioner argued that the AAO had not sufficiently considered its evidence and arguments.
The AAO reviewed the motion but found that it did not meet the requirements for reopening or reconsideration, primarily because the motion largely repeated arguments and evidence previously submitted. The AAO concluded that the petitioner did not provide new facts or legal arguments that would justify reopening the case.
Key Issues
The primary issues were whether the petitioner could demonstrate that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the U.S. and whether the petitioner had a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer. The AAO determined that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish these requirements.
USCIS Findings
The AAO found that the petitioner’s arguments and evidence were repetitive and did not address the specific deficiencies identified in previous decisions. The AAO emphasized that merely repeating prior arguments is not sufficient for reopening or reconsidering a case. Additionally, the AAO noted that the evidence provided by the petitioner was insufficient to demonstrate the beneficiary’s managerial or executive capacity, both in the U.S. and abroad.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner submitted job descriptions, affidavits, and other documents. However, the AAO found these to be inconsistent and insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements for the EB-1C classification.
Additional Notes
The AAO emphasized that motions to reopen or reconsider must introduce new facts or legal arguments that were not previously considered, and that the petitioner must address specific deficiencies identified in prior decisions.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and reconsider was denied. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the requirements for the EB-1C classification.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
