President

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 motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to address the dismissal grounds regarding the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. employment. Additionally, the Petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship between the company and the foreign employer due to internally inconsistent and unreliable tax returns and a lack of legible transactional documentation of ownership.

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 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.