President

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.

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 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.