EB-1C Multinational Executives:AAO Non-Precedents Posted Thus Far in 2013

Compiled by Joseph P. Whalen (September 1, 2013)

LINK TO DECISION RESULTS, EXCERPTS, &COMMENTS

MAR092013_01B4203.pdf SUMMARILY DISMISSED [TSC]

The petitioner is engaged in farming, consulting,and it seeks to employ the beneficiary as its ChiefExecutive Officer. Accordingly, the petitionerendeavors to classify the beneficiary as anemployment-based immigrant pursuant to section203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and NationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b) (1)(C), as amultinational executive or manager.

On November 21, 2011, the director denied thepetition concluding the petitioner failed toestablish that it would employ the beneficiary in amanagerial or executive capacity.

* * * * *In regards to the director's conclusion that thepetitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence toshow the beneficiary's eligibility for the immigrantpetition, counsel for the petitioner fails to identifyerroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact forthe appeal. The petitioner failed to provide anyadditional .......... [evidence]...[sic] to overcome thedirector's concerns. Going on record withoutsupporting documentary evidence is not sufficientfor purposes of meeting the burden of proof inthese proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec.158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r1972)).

1

On the Form I-290B, the petitioner the petitionernoted that USCIS approved an L-1A visa that hadbeen previously filed on behalf of the beneficiary.The AAO acknowledges that USCIS has previouslyapproved an L-1A petition filed by the petitioner onbehalf of the instant beneficiary. It must be notedthat many I-140 immigrant petitions are deniedafter USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant I-129L-1 petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v.INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v.US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22; FedinBrothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103.Examining the consequences of an approvedpetition, there is a significant difference between anonimmigrant L-1A visa classification, whichallows an alien to enter the United Statestemporarily, and an immigrant E-13 visa petition,which permits an alien to apply for permanentresidence in the United States and, if granted,ultimately apply for naturalization as a UnitedStates citizen. Cf. §§ 204 and 214 of the Act, 8U.S.C. §§ 1154 and 1184; see also § 316 of the Act, 8U.S.C. § 1427. Because USCIS spends less timereviewing I-129 nonimmigrant petitions than I-140immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant L-1Apetitions are simply approved in error. Q DataConsulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30;see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(i) (requiring nosupporting documentation to file a petition toextend an L-1A petition's validity).

Despite the previously approved petition, USCISdoes not have any authority to confer animmigration benefit when the petitioner fails to

2

meet its burden of proof in a subsequent petition.See section 291 of the Act. Each petition filing is aseparate· proceeding with a separate record. See 8C.F.R. § 103.8(d). In making a determination ofstatutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to theinformation contained in that individual record ofproceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). Basedon the lack of required evidence of eligibility in thecurrent record, the AAO finds that the director wasjustified in departing from the previousnonimmigrant petition approval by denying theinstant petition.

As noted by counsel, a company's size alone,without taking into account the reasonable needsof the organization, may not be the determiningfactor in denying a visa to a multinational manageror executive. Section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44) (C). Instead, an executive'sduties must be the critical factor. However' basedon the current record, the AAO is unable todetermine whether the claimed managerial dutiesconstitute the majority of the beneficiary's duties,or whether the beneficiary primarily performs non-managerial administrative or operational duties.The petitioner's description of the beneficiary's jobduties does not establish what proportion of thebeneficiary's duties is managerial in nature, andwhat proportion is actually non- managerial. SeeRepublic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177(D.C. Cir. 1991).

MAR092013_02B4203.pdf

This case should be studied tosee what NOT to do when

preparing your evidence and

APPEAL DISMISSED [TSC]

The petitioner is a Florida corporation that isengaged in information technology consulting and

3

especially the beneficiary’sjob description.

development, and seeks to employ the beneficiaryas its President/ CEO. Accordingly, the petitionerendeavors to classify the beneficiary as anemployment-based immigrant pursuant to section203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and NationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as amultinational executive or manager.

On May 15, 2012, the director denied the petitionconcluding that the petitioner failed to establishthat the beneficiary's proposed employment withthe U.S. entity would be within a qualifyingmanagerial or executive capacity.

* * * * *The issue that will be addressed in this proceedingcalls for an analysis of the beneficiary's job duties.Specifically, the AAO will examine the record todetermine whether the petitioner submittedsufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiarywould be employed in the United States in aqualifying managerial or executive capacity.

* * * * *In examining the executive or managerial capacityof the beneficiary, USCIS will look first to thepetitioner's description of the job duties. See 8C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(5). Published case law clearlysupports the pivotal role of a clearly defined jobdescription, as the actual duties themselves thetrue nature of the employment. Fedin Bros, Co.,Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y.1989), aff’d, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); see also 8C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(5). That being said, USCISreviews the totality of the record, which includesnot only the beneficiary's job description, but alsotakes into account the nature of the petitioner'sbusiness, the employment and remuneration ofemployees, as well as the job descriptions of the

4

beneficiary's subordinates, if any, and factscontributing to a complete understanding of abeneficiary's actual role within a given entity.

* * * * *Due to the overly general and vague list of jobduties, the AAO is unable to gain a meaningfulunderstanding of how much time the beneficiarywill spend performing qualifying tasks versus thosethat would be deemed non-qualifying.

The above case should be studied to seewhat NOT to do when preparing your

evidence and especially the beneficiary’sjob description.

MAR092013_03B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [NSC]

The petitioner is a California limited liabilitycompany that is engaged in agriculture, and seeksto employ the beneficiary as its vice president.Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classifybeneficiary as an employment-based immigrantpursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executiveor· manager.

On August 23, 2011, the director denied thepetition concluding that the petitioner failed toestablish that the petitioner has a qualifyingrelationship with the beneficiary’s foreignemployer.

On appeal, counsel disputes the director's findingsprovides an appellate brief laying out the groundsfor challenging the denial.

5

* * * * *The language of the statute is specific in limitingthis provision to only those executives andmanagers who have previously worked for a firm,corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate orsubsidiary of that entity, and who are coming tothe United States to work for the same entity, or itsaffiliate or subsidiary.

A United States employer may file a petition onForm 1-140 for classification of an alien undersection 203(b) (1)(C) of the Act as a multinationalexecutive or manager. No labor certification isrequired for this classification. The prospectiveemployer in the United States must furnish a joboffer in the form of a statement which indicatesthat the alien is to be employed in the UnitedStates in a managerial or executive capacity. Sucha statement must clearly describe the duties to beperformed by the alien.

The issue that will be addressed in this proceedingis whether the petitioner submitted sufficientevidence to establish that it has a qualifyingrelationship with the beneficiary’s foreignemployer. To establish a qualifying relationshipunder the Act and the regulations, the petitionermust show that the beneficiary's foreign employerand the proposed U.S. employer are the sameemployer (i.e. a U.S. entity with a foreign office) orrelated as a "parent and subsidiary" or as"affiliates." See generally § 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act,8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C); see also 8 C.F.R §204.5(j)(2) (providing definitions of the terms"affiliate" and "subsidiary").

* * * * *

6

Although counsel claims that the petitioningcompany and the foreign company are bothmajority owned and controlled by [REDACTED &REDACTED] this familial relationship does notconstitute a qualifying relationship under theregulations. See Ore v. Clinton, 675 F.Supp.2d 217,226 (D.C. Mass. 2009) (finding that the petitionerand the foreign company did not qualify as"affiliates" "within the precise definition set out inthe regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (l)(1)(ii)(L)(1),despite petitioner's claims that the two companies"are owned and controlled by the same individuals,specifically the Ore family").

MAR092013_04B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [NSC]

The petitioner claims to be a Florida corporationthat seeks to employ the beneficiary in the UnitedStates a its president. Accordingly, the petitionerendeavors to classify the beneficiary as anemployment-based immigrant pursuant to section203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and NationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as amultinational executive or manager.

Among the documents that were submitted insupport of the Form 1-140 was a statement datedSeptember 29, 2008 and signed by [REDACTED]in her capacity as the company administrator.[REDACTED] stated that the petitioner had fouremployees, including the beneficiary, anddescribed the petitioner's business as one involvingthe import and export of office supplies, printers,and copier parts. The petitioner also providedadditional evidence in the form of corporate andbusiness documents.

7

The director reviewed the petitioner's submissionsand determined that the petition did not warrantapproval. The director therefore issued a requestfor evidence (RFE) dated February 5, 2010informing the petitioner of various evidentiarydeficiencies. The RFE included requests for a moredetailed job description pertaining to thebeneficiary's proposed employment with a list ofthe beneficiary's job duties and their timeallocations, the petitioner's organizational chartdepicting the company's staffing structure and thebeneficiary’s placement therein, and jobdescriptions of the beneficiary's subordinates ineach entity. The petitioner was asked to support itsstatements with documentary evidence. Thedirector also cautioned the petitioner to refrainfrom paraphrasing the statutory language in placeof the beneficiary's job description and toprovide specific examples of duties the beneficiarywould perform that meet the statutory definition ofmanagerial or executive capacity.

The petitioner's response to the RFE included astatement' dated March 15, 2010 and signed by thepetitioner's sales manager. The statement includedan overview of the beneficiary's U.S. employmentand job descriptions pertaining to the salesmanager and administrator positions. Thepetitioner also provided a copy of its organizationalchart from March 18, 2009 depicting a total of fiveemployees-the beneficiary, an administrator, asecretary, a sales manager, and a sales person--aswell as the petitioner's 2009 tax return showing$62,400 paid to the beneficiary in officercompensation and an additional $67,152 paid inemployee wages and salaries.

8

After considering the petitioner's response, thedirector determined that the petitioner failed toestablish that the beneficiary would be employedwith the U.S. entity in a qualifying managerial orexecutive capacity. The director found thebeneficiary's job description to be lacking thedetailed information that was requested in the RFEand further determined that a significant portionof the beneficiary's time would be allocated to tasksof a non-qualifying nature. In light of these adversefindings, the director issued a decision dated June1, 2010 denying the petition.

On appeal, counsel provides a brief in which hedisputes the director's findings by reiteratinginformation that was previously provided withregard to the beneficiary's job description and thejob descriptions of the beneficiary's subordinates.Counsel points to the beneficiary's discretionaryauthority, senior position within the petitioner'sorganizational hierarchy, and his oversight ofmanagerial and supervisory subordinates.

The AAO finds that counsel's statements are notpersuasive and thus fail to overcome the director’sfindings. A comprehensive discussion of the AAO'sfindings is provided below.

AAO dissection, discussion and analysis ofthe evidence continues for the next 2 1/2

pages. Please take the time to read it.

9

MAR092013_05B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [TSC]

The petitioner; an electronics import-exportcompany, seeks to employ the beneficiary as itsmanager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors toclassify the beneficiary as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executiveor manager.

On March 13, 2012 the director denied the petitionconcluding that the petitioner failed to establish:(1) that it will employ the beneficiary in a primarilymanagerial or executive capacity; and (2) that ithas the ability to pay the beneficiary the profferedwage.

On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the directorsubstantially minimized and overlooked evidenceestablishing the beneficiary's and petitioner'seligibility, therefore the decision was incorrect. Thepetitioner submits a brief in support of the appeal.

The Director found two reasons to denybut AAO found two more for a grand total of

four reasons for denial.

APR012013_01B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [NSC]

The petitioner is a California limited· liabilitycompany that seeks to employ the beneficiary asmanaging director. Accordingly, the petitionerendeavors to classify the beneficiary as anemployment-based immigrant pursuant to section203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and NationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as amultinational executive or manager.

10

The petitioner states that it is engaged in sale andtrade of automobiles and the food industry, andindicates that it has three employees. In support ofthe Form 1-140 the petitioner submitted a letterfrom counsel dated April 28, 2011 which providedsome of the beneficiary's expected duties with theU.S. company. The petitioner also providedevidence in the form of corporate and financialdocuments pertaining to the beneficiary's foreignemployer.

There was an RFE with inadequateresponse, then on appeal additional

evidence was submitted BUT....

During adjudication of the appeal, evidence cameto light that the petitioner in this matter had asuspended corporate status in the State ofCalifornia. Therefore, on January 8, 2013, the AAOnotified the petitioner that a review of thepetitioner's status at the business search websitemaintained by the California Secretary of Stateindicated that the petitioner was suspended....

This one is complicated but well worthtaking the time to read for yourself.

APR012013_02B4203.pdf MOTION DISMISSED [TSC]

The petitioner is a Maryland corporation engagedin the business of international trade. It seeks toemploy the beneficiary as its president.Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classifythe beneficiary as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the

11

Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executiveor manager.

The director denied the petition concluding thatthe petitioner failed to establish that thebeneficiary would be employed in a managerial orexecutive capacity.

The petitioner appealed the denial disputing thedirector’s findings. The AAO dismissed the appeal,rejecting prior counsel's reliance on the petitioner'spreviously approved nonimmigrant petition. TheAAO provided a thorough analysis of the jobdescription offered by prior counsel and found thatcounsel's statements lacked credible and detailedinformation about the beneficiary's actual daily jobduties. The AAO also noted, beyond the decision ofthe director, that the petitioner failed to providesufficient evidence to establish that: (1) thebeneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifyingmanagerial or executive capacity; and (2) thepetitioner has a qualifying relationship with thebeneficiary's prior employer abroad.

On motion, the petitioner’s new counsel asks theAAO to consider new evidence which he claims willestablish that the beneficiary's proposed positionwith the U.S. entity is in a qualifying managerial orexecutive capacity. Counsel offers the foreignentity's trade license as a means of establishingthat the work the beneficiary performed abroadwas also in a qualifying managerial or executivecapacity. Counsel neither disputes nor addressesthe AAO's adverse finding with regard to the lackof evidence showing a qualifying relationship

12

between the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreignemployer. Therefore, the petitioner effectivelyconcedes to the AAO’s adverse finding on the issueof a qualifying relationship.

Please read the rest of the decision for adiscussion of what types of “new” evidence

are prohibited from the agency’sconsideration at the stage.

APR012013_03B4203.pdf MOTION DISMISSED [TSC]

DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition wasinitially approved by the Director, Texas ServiceCenter. Upon further review, a Notice of Intent toRevoke (NOIR) was issued and the approval ofthe petition. was ultimately revoked. The petitionerappealed the matter to the AdministrativeAppeals Office (AAO). The appeal was dismissed.The matter is now before the AAO on motion toreopen and reconsider. The motion will bedismissed.

The petitioner is a Texas corporation that seeks toemploy the beneficiary in the United States as itspresident. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors toclassify the beneficiary as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (the Act),8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinationalexecutive or manager.

The director revoked the approval of the visapetition based on four independent grounds ofineligibility. Specifically, the director found thepetitioner failed to establish: (1) that the

13

beneficiary's proposed employment with the U.S.entity would be in a qualifying managerial orexecutive capacity; (2) that the beneficiary'semployment abroad was within a qualifyingmanagerial or executive capacity; (3) the existenceof a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity;and (4) that the foreign company continues tooperate as a business abroad.

On appeal, the AAO found that the petitioner failedto provide sufficient evidence to overcome thedirector's decision on any of the four independentgrounds. Consequently, the AAO affirmed thedirector's findings and dismissed the appeal.

* * * * *Upon review, the petitioner's submission does notmeet the requirements of a motion to reopen or amotion to reconsider.

APR012013_04B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [TSC]

The petitioner is a [REDACTED] that seeks toemploy the beneficiary as its director of businessdevelopment. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavorsto classify the beneficiary as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinationalexecutive or manager.

The director denied the petition concluding thatthe petitioner did not establish it had the abilityto pay the proffered wage.

The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. Thedirector declined to treat the appeal as a motion

14

and forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal,counsel submits additional documentationasserting that the petitioner has now demonstratedan ability to pay the proffered wage. Counselprovides a legal brief and additional evidence insupport of the appeal.

* * * * *Finally; on appeal, counsel for petitioner assertsthat USCIS may consider evidence relevant to apetitioner's financial ability that falls outside of apetitioner's net income and net current assetsciting Matter of Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. at 612(Reg'l Comm'r. 1967). Therefore, petitionersubmits documents reflecting current businesslevels and anticipated profitability for 2012. Thepetitioner indicates that it expects to increaseprofits, hire new personnel, and increase salaries ofthose currently employed. However, the petitioneris a small company offering documentationcovering a very short period of time. A visa petitionmay riot be approved based on speculationof future eligibility ·or after the petitioner orbeneficiary becomes eligible under a new set offacts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&NDec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm'r 1971).Further, the totality of the circumstances affectingthe petitioning busi_ness will be considered if theevidence warrants such consideration. See Matterof Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612 (Reg. Comm'r1967). In this matter, the evidence does notwarrant such consideration.

15

APR022013_01B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [NSC]

The petitioner claims to be a Californiacorporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary inthe United States as its "CEO/CFO & MarketingDirector." Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors toclassify the beneficiary as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executiveor manager.

* * * * *After considering the petitioner's response ...[to anRFE]..., the director determined that the petitionerfailed to establish that the beneficiary would beemployed in the United States iri a qualifyingmanagerial or executive capacity. The directordetermined that the petitioner submitted adeficient job description lacking in adequateinformation about the beneficiary's actual dailytasks. The director also determined that thebeneficiary would oversee the work of outside salespersonnel, whom the director deemed asnon-professional employees. The directorincorporated his findings in a denial dated June 13,2012.

On appeal, counsel provides a brief disputing thedirector's adverse findings. Counsel asserts that thedirector placed undue emphasis on the size of thepetitioner's staff while neglecting to consider thepetitioner's reasonable needs as well as its overallpurpose and stage of development. Counsel assertsthat the beneficiary's position title does notincorporate the term manager, but rather that ofdirector, claiming that the two terms are distinct.

16

Counsel asserts that the director functions withinan executive capacity where he allocates his timeprimarily to qualifying executive tasks.

After having reviewed the record and consideredcounsel's statements on appeal, the AAO finds thatcounsel's assertions are not persuasive inovercoming the basis for denial. The discussionbelow will address points that are deemed relevantto the petitioner's burden of proof in this matter.

The above highlighted sentence shouldhave you clicking on the link by now.

Get moving!

APR022013_02B4203.pdf MOTION DISMISSED [TSC]

DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition wasinitially approved by the Director, Vermont ServiceCenter. Upon further review of the record, theDirector, Texas Service Center, determined thatthe petitioner was not eligible for the benefitsought. Accordingly, the director properly servedthe petitioner with a notice of his intention torevoke the approval of the preference visa petition,and his reasons therefore. The director ultimatelyrevoked the approval of the petition and thepetitioner subsequently filed an appeal with theAdministrative Appeals Office (AAO) where theappeal was summarily. dismissed. The matter isnow before the AAO on motion to reopen. The AAOwill dismiss the petitioner's motion.

The petitioner claimed to be a wholesale, retail,and investment operation seeking to employ thebeneficiary as its president. Accordingly, the

17

petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary asan employment-based immigrant pursuant tosection 203(b)1I)(C) of the Immigration andNationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C),as a multinational executive or manager. Thedirector revoked the petition, concluding thatthe petitioner failed to establish that: (1) thebeneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifyingmanagerial or executive capacity; (2) thebeneficiary's proposed position with the U.S. entitywould be in a managerial or executive capacity;and (3) the petitioner continues to do business inthe United States. Additionally, as a result of thebeneficiary's interview at the New York DistrictOffice, the director found that the petitionersubmitted inconsistent evidence and thusconcluded that the evidence was unreliable andinsufficient for the purpose of establishingeligibility.

AAO once again goes on to “school” counselabout basic MTR requirements and the

meaning of the word “new”.

APR022013_03B4203.pdf MOTION DISMISSED [NSC]

The petitioner is 'a California corporation thatseeks to employ the beneficiary as its vicepresident. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors toclassify the beneficiary as an employment-basedimmigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of theImmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executiveor manager. The director denied the petitionconcluding that the petitioner failed to establishthat the beneficiary was employed in a managerialor executive capacity.

18

The petitioner appealed the denial disputing thedenial. The AAO dismissed the appeal affirmingthe director's original conclusion-that thepetitioner failed to establish that the beneficiarywas employed abroad in a qualifying managerial orexecutive· capacity-and making three additionalfindings beyond the director's decision. First, theAAO concluded that the petitioner provided adeficient job description and organizationalchart pertaining to the benefiCiary's proposedemployment with the petitioning entity, thusfailing to establish that the beneficiary would beemployed in a qualifying managerial or executivecapacity in her proposed pos1t10n. Second, theAAO concluded that the petitioner failed to provideevidence showing that the petitioner met the initialfiling requirement specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D), which requires the petitioner to establishthat it had been doing business for at least one yearprior to filing the Form I-140. And third, the AAOfound that the petitioner failed to provide evidenceof its continued business activity abroad, thusprecluding an affirmative finding that thepetitioner continues to fit the definition of amultinational organization.

On motion to reopen, counsel attempts toovercome the grounds for the AAO's decision,offering a supplemental brief which contains anadditional percentage breakdown pertaining to thebeneficiary's employment with the foreign entity.as well as job descriptions of the beneficiary!sdirect subordinates. Counsel also contends that theforeign entity continues to do business and that thepetitioner had been doing business for therequisite one-year period prior to filing the Form

19

I-140. Counsel offers non-binding andnonprecedent decisions in support of her assertionsand asks the AAO to consider the followingdocuments as new evidence:

You will have to read the actual decision toparse the evidence considerations along

with AAO. Doing so will only help you toavoid the same mistakes!

APR022013_04B4203.pdf 2nd APPEAL REJECTED [NSC]

The first motion was Summarily Dismissedand therefore, the Motion option is limited.

This petition checked the wrong box!

You only get ONE administrative appeal.After that it must be a Motion and then it

must actually qualify as one.

APR292013_01B4203.pdf 2nd APPEAL REJECTED [TSC]

The petitioner seeks appellate review of the AAO'sown decision. There is no statutory or regulatoryprovision that permits the petitioner to file morethan one appeal before the AAO with regard to thesame petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(ii). Theauthority to adjudicate appeals is delegated to theAAO by the Secretary of the Department ofHomeland Security (DHS) pursuant to theauthority vested in him through the HomelandSecurity Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. See DHSDelegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,2003); see also 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003). The AAOexercises appellate jurisdiction over the mattersdescribed at 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (as in effect

20

on February 28, 2003), with one exception-petitions for approval of schools under§ 214.3 arenow the responsibility of Immigration andCustoms Enforcement (ICE). The AAO does notexercise appellate jurisdiction over its owndecisions. Accordingly, the appeal is not properlywithin the AAO's jurisdiction.

21