President

The Petitioner failed to provide a statement from the foreign employer confirming the Beneficiary's duties and did not establish a subordinate personnel structure. There was no objective evidence of a qualifying relationship (parent, subsidiary, or affiliate) between the entities. Furthermore, the Beneficiary's stay in the U.S. for over four years in B-2 and F-2 status without work authorization interrupted the continuity of qualifying employment.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner did not state new facts supported by documentary evidence, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The Petitioner merely repeated prior assertions and failed to address the AAO's reason for dismissing the first motion, which was the lack of required initial evidence for several EB-1C criteria.

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 Director denied the petition because the Petitioner omitted crucial initial evidence, including proof of the U.S. job offer, qualifying relationship, ability to pay, foreign employment duration, and continuing foreign operations, and failed to respond to the RFE. The AAO dismissed the appeal because it did not challenge the Director's findings. The motion to reopen was dismissed because it did not challenge the AAO's summary dismissal and the new evidence provided did not remedy the original denial grounds or constitute the required initial evidence for EB-1C eligibility.