dismissed EB-3 Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25334886 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for a Professional 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 7, 2023 
The Petitioner, a provider of financial consulting services, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an 
accountant. The company requests his classification under the third-preference, immigrant visa category 
for professionals. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(3)(A)(ii). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition, but subsequently revoked the 
approval, concluding that the Petitioner and Beneficiary concealed family relationships between the 
Beneficiary and the company's principals and that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the availability 
of the offered position to U.S. workers. The Director also dismissed the following motion to reopen, 
concluding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that its delay in filing the motion was reasonable 
and beyond its control. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and its subsequent combined motion to 
reopen and motion to reconsider. The matter is before us again on a second combined motion to 
reopen and motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy to the prior decision, and 
a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to 
reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director revoked his previous approval of this petition. In our decision on appeal, 
we concluded that the Director provided adequate notification of that revocation, and that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that its delay in filing a motion to reopen that revocation decision, 
filed more than 15 months later, was reasonable and beyond its control. In dismissing the Petitioner's 
subsequent motion, we concluded that the company had not presented new facts relevant to our 
appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings. 1 We also determined that the 
Petitioner had not established that our appellate decision was based upon an incorrect application of 
law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) policy, or that it was incorrect based upon 
the record at the time the decision was made. 2 
A. Motion to Reopen 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i) limits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) 
authority to reopen to instances where an applicant has shown "proper cause" for that action . Thus, 
to merit reopening or reconsideration, an applicant must not only meet the formal filing requirements 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii) (such as submission of a properly completed and signed Form I-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause for granting the 
motion . Specifically, a motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
The Petitioner's current motion contests the Director's revocation decision's material 
misrepresentation finding. The Petitioner states that the present "motion is filed to demonstrate there 
is neither a factual nor a legal basis for an INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding against [the Beneficiary]." It 
argues that the Director's revocation decision also failed to properly make its misrepresentation 
finding against the Petitioner. With the motion, the Petitioner submits a copy of the Beneficiary's 
Form I-485 "Supplement J, Confirmation of a Bona Fide Job Offer or Request for Job Portability 
under INA Section 204G)." This form was accompanied by an attachment challenging the Director's 
revocation decision and attesting to the Beneficiary 's admissibility. 
The issue here is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts, supported by documentary evidence, 
to warrant reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). And the matters the Petitioner must first overcome 
within this motion are limited to the issues discussed within our most recent decision ; the August 2022 
dismissal of the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. General support that a motion must 
1 We determined that the Petitioner's member's statement regarding the timeline of the company 's relocation and its efforts 
to have its mail forwarded was not material to the issue of whether USCIS provided adequate notice of the revocation to 
the Petitioner. As noted in one of the USCIS webpage printouts submitted with the motion, changing an address with the 
U.S. Postal Service will not change the address with USCIS . The member 's statement also reiterated arguments made on 
appeal that the Petitioner's delay in filing its initial motion to reopen was reasonable since it filed the motion as soon as it 
learned of the revocation . As these claims had already been presented, we concluded that the Petitioner 's motion to reopen 
did not state new facts, and therefore it did not meet the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
2 We stated that USCIS resources stress the importance of updating addresses, with the DHS Ombudsman website 
indicating that "[i ]t is the sole responsibility of the applicant /petitioner to ensure USCIS has the correct address information 
on file." We indicated the Petitioner had not shown that our prior decision that the untimely filing of its initial motion to 
reopen was not reasonable or beyond its control was incorrect. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l) . Our decision further noted that the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l) states that USCIS has discretion to excuse the untimely filing of a motion to reopen 
where a petitioner demonstrates "that the delay was reasonable and beyond [its] control." It does not require, as the 
Petitioner suggested , that USCIS consider whether the Petitioner would have timely a filed motion to reopen the revocation 
of its petition if it would have received the notice . Our decision also expla ined that each benefit request creates its own , 
separate record of proceeding , and officers are expected to consider that record only when adjudicating a petition or 
applicat ion. See 1 USCJS Policy Manual E.2. Finally , we pointed to USCIS public guidance which indicated that it is the 
Petitioner's responsibility to update its address with USCIS. 
2 
first overcome the most recent decision lies within the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)-(3) where 
it repeatedly discusses the underlying or latest decision, it limits the time one has to file a motion after 
the most recent decision, and it references jurisdiction resting with the entity who made the latest 
decision. This demonstrates that any motion must first address and overcome the most recent adverse 
decision before the filing party's arguments may move on to any issue that arose in a previous petition, 
appeal, or motion filing . 
In this case , the Petitioner has not provided new facts in order to warrant reopening our latest decision . 
Instead , the Petitioner contends that the Director's finding of misrepresentation in the revocation 
decision was not supported by law or fact. We conclude that the Petitioner 's motion to reopen does 
not state new facts to overcome the grounds for dismissal set forth in our most recent decision , and 
therefore fails to meet the requirements at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .5( a)(2). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director's revocation decision erred in finding the Beneficiary 
inadmissible pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. It also contends that the Director did not 
present sufficient facts to support the inadmissibility finding. The Petitioner's arguments, however , 
do not demonstrate how we incorrectly applied law or policy in our latest decision. The review of any 
motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the prior adverse decision . Accordingly , we examine any 
new arguments to the extent that they pertain to our dismissal of the Petitioner 's prior motion. 3 Thus, 
the issue before us is whether we erred in applying law or policy in our August 2022 decision. Because 
the Petitioner has not provided any argument s relating to our most recent decision , the Petitioner has 
not shown that we incorrectly applied law or policy in our latest decision based on the record before 
us. 
The Petitioner therefore has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider as it has not shown that 
we erred in our prior decision based on the record before us at the time of the decision. In addition , the 
present motion to reconsider does not establish that our latest decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw , regulation, or USCIS policy. 
III . CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy , nor has it 
established new facts relevant to our prior decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings . 
Consequently , we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration. 
3 The prior motion was filed in November 2021. 
3 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4