Controller

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner did not adequately address the issues of the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. employment, which were deemed waived. Furthermore, the Petitioner resubmitted previously considered documents and provided conflicting evidence regarding company ownership, failing to resolve the inconsistencies raised in prior decisions.

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 Petitioner did not resolve conflicting information regarding its ownership with independent, objective evidence such as stock certificates or ledgers. Additionally, the amended tax returns submitted on motion contained internal inconsistencies and did not match previous claims of ownership structure.

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.