Manager

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.

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 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 appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. Despite claiming the U.S. entity was wholly owned by the foreign employer, the submitted evidence, including a company agreement, unanimous consent document, and IRS Forms 1120, contained discrepancies and lacked crucial details like capital contribution amounts and membership certificates, failing to sufficiently prove ownership and control.