Manager

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 appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's subordinates, both in the U.S. and abroad, qualified as professional employees requiring a bachelor's degree, or as managers/supervisors. The evidence submitted on motion, including updated letters, organizational charts, and educational credentials, did not sufficiently establish the managerial capacity criteria, and some evidence was previously submitted or lacked corroboration. The motion to reconsider also failed to articulate why the Director's decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.

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 Petitioner failed to provide valid certified English translations for foreign language documents as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(iii). The motion to reopen did not state new facts or provide new documentary evidence, and the motion to reconsider failed to establish an incorrect application of law or policy in the prior decision.