General Manager

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the AAO concluded that USCIS properly served the NOIR by routine service, as supported by regulations (8 C.F.R. § 103.8(a)(1), § 205.1(b), § 205.2(b)), USCIS policy, and federal court precedent. The AAO determined that the revocation of an approved immigrant visa petition is not a 'proceeding' that requires personal service under 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(c)(1).

The motions were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to address the specific conclusions of the prior appellate decision regarding the Beneficiary's proposed employment capacity and did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Additionally, the Petitioner did not submit new facts or documentary evidence to overcome the deficiencies concerning the claimed qualifying relationship, specifically conflicting ownership information in tax returns and an invalid stock certificate. The Petitioner's new claim of an affiliate relationship was also not sufficiently supported.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would primarily perform executive duties, lacking sufficient evidence of subordinates to handle non-executive tasks. The organizational structure and staffing levels were inconsistent and inadequate to support an executive role. Furthermore, the qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities was not proven due to a defective stock certificate and conflicting ownership information on tax returns. The Petitioner's argument for a 'functional manager' role was also rejected as an improper change to the petition's basis and lacked supporting evidence.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary would direct the management of the U.S. organization or a major component/function thereof, a key requirement for executive capacity under EB-1C. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient information about subordinate staff to demonstrate a management structure warranting executive supervision, and evidence like organizational charts, employee numbers, and payroll records contained material inconsistencies and lacked credibility. Although a qualifying relationship was established, it did not alter the outcome due to the unresolved executive capacity issue.