dismissed EB-3 Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20684241 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for a Professional 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 18, 2022 
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 failed to 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 subsequent appeal, and the Petitioner now submits combined 
motions to reopen and reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 ;MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss both appeals. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application oflaw 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 at8 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. 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. To permanently fill a position 
in the United States with a foreign worker, a prospective employer must first obtain certification from 
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(aX5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5). DOL 
approval signifies that insufficient U.S. workers are able, willing, qualified, and available for a position. 
Id. Labor certification also indicates that the employment of a foreign national will not harm wages and 
working conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. Id. 
If DOL approves a position, an employer must next submit the certified labor application with an 
immigrant visa petition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Among other things, USCIS considers whether a beneficiary meets the 
requirements of a ce1iified position and a requested immigrant visa classification. If USCIS approves 
the petition, a foreign national may finally apply for an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, 
adjustment of status in the United States. See section 245 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director revoked his previous approval of this petition. In our decision on appeai 
we concluded that USCIS 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. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We do not require the evidence ofa "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, "new facts" are facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on motion and 
that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original petition. 
Reasse1iing previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute 
"new facts." Here, the Petitioner submits a signed statement from its member which goes into further 
detail about the timeline of its relocation and efforts to have its mail forwarded through the United 
States Postal Service. However, this new information is 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 statement also reiterates arguments made in its appeal that the Petitioner's delay in filing its initial 
motion to reopen were reasonable since it filed the motion as soon as it learned of the revocation. As 
these claims have already been presented, we find that the Petitioner's motion to reopen does not state 
new facts, and therefore fails to meet the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(2). Accordingly, the 
motion is dismissed. 
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. § l 03.5(a)(3). On motion, the Petitioner asserts thattheresources about 
updating addresses that we referred to in our last decision are ambiguous as to whether they also apply 
to instances where a petition or application has already been approved, and that it was therefore 
unaware of any requirement and not obligated to provide a new address after approval of this petition. 
We first note that although one of the copies of USCIS webpages submitted by the Petitioner refers 
only to pending cases, two others refer to both pending cases and to changes in address in general, 
noting instances in which an updated address is needed even after approval. In addition, a visit to the 
2 
website's "How Do I Guides" page at www.uscis.gov/tools/how-do-i-guides includes a link to a page 
entitled "After Receiving a Decision," https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-receiving-a-decision, 
which states that "If you have moved since your case was approved, change your address on line or 
call the USCIS Contact Center." And as stated in our previous decision, all of these resources stress 
the importance of updating addresses, with the DHS Ombudsman website stressing that "It is the sole 
responsibility of the applicant/petitioner to ensure USCIS has the correct address infmmation on file." 
Afterreview of these public guidelines, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that our previous 
decision that the untimely filing of its initial motion to reopen was not reasonable or beyond its control 
was incorrect. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
The Petitioner also asserts that because it acted to change its address and file its motion upon learning 
of the revocation through correspondence related to a nonimmigrant petition filed on the Beneficiazy's 
behalf, we should take this into consideration and consider the initial motion to reopen to have been 
timely filed. It refers to a decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals ('the Board") regarding in 
absentia orders of removal, which lists factors to be considered in overcoming a presumption of 
delivery of those notices. MatterofM-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665 (BIA 2008). However, the Petitioner 
has not established thatthe standard used and factors considered by the Board when reviewing motions 
to reopen in absentia removal orders should be applied in this matter. As noted above and in our 
previous decision, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(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 suggests, 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. 
Finally, the Petitioner argues that since USCIS is one agency, it was reasonable for the Petitioner to 
believe that the new address it used in its nonimmigrant visa petitions would be shared and applied to 
its immigrant visa petition as well. But as explained in our previous decision, each benefit request 
creates its own, separate record of proceeding, and officers are expected to consider that record only 
when adjudicating a petition or application. See I USCIS Policy ManualE.2. As noted above, USCIS 
public guidance states that it is the Petitioner's responsibility to update its address with USCIS. 
The Petitioner has not established that our most recent decision was based upon an incorrect 
application of law or policy, or that it was incorrect based upon the record at the time the decision was 
made. As such, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3