dismissed EB-3 Case: Bookkeeping

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-T-0-W-.INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 12.2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a drycleaner. seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a bookkeeper. It requests 
classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference immigrant category. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act section 203(b)(3)(A)(i). 8 U.S.C. § 1153(8)(3)(!\)(i). This 
employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a foreign national fi.Jr 
lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that requires at least two years of training or 
expenence. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition. The Director later 
concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary possessed the employment 
experience required by the job offer and that it properly conducted its recruitment. The Director also 
concluded that the United States Department of Labor. Office of Inspector General. Ot1icc of 
Investigations - Labor Racketeering and Fraud had conducted interviews and had '"found frm1d.'" 
Therefore. the Director revoked the approval of the petition. 
The Petitioner appealed the Director's revocation. and we dismissed the appeal. We also dismissed 
a subsequent motion to reconsider because it was not supported by any precedent decisions and did 
not establish that we based our appellate decision on an incorrect application of law or Service 
policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The matter is now before us on motion to reopen. The entity that filed the motion asserts that the 
Beneficiary possessed the required employment experience as of the priority date. that it conducted 
the recruitment properly. and that it had established its ability to pay the protTered vvagc. The 
motion includes a statement. tax records. and copies of previously submittedjob advertisements. 
Upon review. we will deny the motion. 
.
Malter ofF-T-0-W-. Inc. 
I. LAW 
Appeals and motions may only be filed by an atlected party. In most visa petition cases, the affected 
party is limited to the petitioner. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B) ("For purposes of [appeals. motions. 
and decisions certified for review], affected party ... means the person or entity with legal standing 
in a proceeding.") 
To merit reopening , the affected party must 
meet the f(mnal filing requirements. such as submission 
of a properly completed Form 1-2908. Notice of Appeal or Motion. within 30 days of the decision 
that the motion seeks to reopen. The motion also must be signed by the aflected party or 
representative ofrecord. 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 atlidavits or other documentary evidence. 
8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(2). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be denied. ,)'ee 
8 C.F.R. § 103.4(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
We will deny the motion to reopen because it was not filed by an affected party or representative of 
record. In this case. F-T -0- W -, Inc. tiled the immigrant visa petition. On the petition. 
F-T-0-W- , Inc. claimed to have started doing business in 1985 and lists a federal tax employer 
identification number (EIN) ending in Although the motion is signed by an individual \Vho 
claims to be the new owner of the petitioning entity. the record does not show that he is afllliated 
with the Petitioner, and he instead appears to own an unrelated company. The 2012 tax return that 
he submits is for an entity named F-T-C, Inc. that was incorporated on January L 2012. and has a 
ditTerent EIN ending in Moreover. a review of the Massachusetts state database not only 
confirms that the two entities are separate but that the Petitioner voluntarily dissolved on January 27, 
2012, and no longer exits. F-T-C. Inc. docs not claim to be, nor does the record. show that it is a 
successor-in-interest to the Petitioner. Instead, it appears to be a di flerent company that simply 
operates from the address that used to house the Petitioner. Consequently. the motion must be 
denied because it was not tiled by the Petitioner but was instead tiled by a separate entity that is not 
recognized as an affected party in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. ~ I 03.4(a)(4 ). 
Even if an affected party had tiled this motion. we would deny it because it otherwise does not meet 
the requirements of a motion to reopen. The official having .iurisdiction in a motion is the official 
who made the latest decision in the proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1 )(ii). Therefore. for the 
purposes of this motion to reopen, the scope of our review is limited to the latest decision. which was 
our decision dismissing the prior motion based on its failure to meet the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider. The new motion to reopen discusses the merits of the underlying case: however, it docs 
not address our prior decision on the motion to reconsider. 
Consequently. because the motion before us does not does not state new facts concerning the prior 
motion decision and is not supported by affidavits or other evidence addressing our prior decision on 
2 
Muller iif F- T-0- W-. Inc. 
the motion to reconsider. it does not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen and must be denied 
for this additional reason. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed. this motion must be denied because it is not tiled by an affected party and 
otherwise does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter li{F-T-0-W-. Inc., ID# 288323 (AAO Jan. 12. 2018)