Director

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner's motion to reopen did not present new facts, and the motion to reconsider failed to identify an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the Petitioner resubmitted previously rejected evidence and failed to provide tax documentation covering the entire period from the 2018 priority date.

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year during the qualifying period. The record lacked a description of foreign duties, and the beneficiary's long-term presence in the U.S. as a visitor since 2015 constituted a disqualifying break in multinational employment. Additionally, the petitioner failed to document the beneficiary's nonimmigrant status and authorization to work in the U.S. at the time of filing.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner's motion to reopen lacked new facts and the motion to reconsider failed to establish an incorrect application of law or policy. The Beneficiary did not meet the one-year foreign employment requirement due to time spent in the U.S. and the foreign role's executive nature was not demonstrated as it lacked control over subordinate managerial staff. The proposed U.S. role also lacked executive capacity due to discrepancies in organizational charts and insufficient staffing to relieve the Beneficiary of operational duties.