dismissed EB-3 Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATIER OF A-M-A-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 14,2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software development company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an accountant. 
It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a professional under the third preference immigrant 
classification. Immigration and Nationality Act, section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to 
sponsor a professional with a baccalaureate degree for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition. The Director subsequently 
revoked the petition's approval, concluding that the job offer was not bolla fide because the 
Beneficiary was the brother of a shareholder of an affiliate of the Petitioner; and that inconsistencies 
in evidence relating to the Beneficiary's prior experience had not been resolved with independent, 
objective evidence. The Director also determined that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary made 
willful misrepresentations of material facts on the labor certification, and he invalidated the labor 
certification. We summarily dismissed a subsequent appeal because the Petitioner failed to identify 
any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision.' 
On motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Petitioner was not 
affiliated with an entity owned by the Beneficiary's brother when the labor certification was filed. 
The Petitioner also states that the letters submitted in support of the Beneficiary's experience were 
not entirely inconsistent, and that both letters detailed the Beneficiary's qualifying experience for the 
offered job. Upon review, we will deny the motion to reopen and deny the motion to reconsider. 
A petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements of a motion and show proper cause for 
granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). A motion to reopen must state new facts and be 
supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). On motion, the Petitioner states no new 
facts and provides no evidence demonstrating that it did, in fact, identify an error on appeal 2 Thus, the 
1 We may summarily dismiss an appeal when the petitioner fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law 
orstatemcnt of fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(t)(v). 
2 When a motion is filed, the petitioner may seck reopening or reconsideration of the immediate prior decision. See S 
C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l). The immediate prior decision in this case is our summary dismissal of the appeal. However, the 
evidence submitted by the Petitioner on motion relates to the Director's notice of revocation, and not our decision on 
appeal. 
Matter of A-M-A-5-, Inc. 
Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen the proceeding, and the motion to reopen will be 
denied. 
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). A motion to reconsider must be supported by a 
pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services or Department of Homeland Security policy. On motion, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that our summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy based on the record at the time of our decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
shown proper cause for us to reconsider the proceeding, and the motion to reconsider will be denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-M-A-S-, Inc., ID# 1268448 (AAO June 14, 2018) 
2