dismissed EB-3 Case: Church Administration

(b)(6)
MATTER OF A-W-M-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 22, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a church, filed the visa petition seeking to employ the Beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as an Administrative Assistant under classification as a skilled worker. Section 
203(b)(3)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 203(b)(3)(A). The Director , 
Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition and we dismissed the appeal filed by the 
which has subsequently filed five motions to reopen or reconsider. A new 
motion to reopen is now before us. The motion will be denied. 
The instant motion is again filed by the which claims eligibility for the immigration benefit as 
the Petitioner's successor-in-interest. The seeks to overcome our June 4, 2015, denial of its 
March 20,2015, motion to reconsider our rejection of its untimely-filed October 8, 2014, motion to 
reopen and motion to reconsider. In support of its motion, the submits what it describes as its 
Projected and Completed Budget for 2014 and its Projected Budget for 2015, as well as pictures of 
church activities to establish the church programs and activities that require the services of the 
Beneficiary. 
We will not, however, consider the motion to reopen as the record does not establish that the 
has any legal standing in the present matter. 
A labor certification is valid only for the particular job opportunity stated on the labor certification 
application. 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(c). To continue offering a job opportunity for immigration 
purposes, an entity that is not the employer identified on the labor certification must establish itself 
as that employer 's successor-in-interest. In the present matter, the record does not demonstrate that 
the is the Petitioner's successor-in-interest , a finding discussed at length in our December 27, 
2012, decision on appeal, and our July 22, 2013, and February 4 and June 6, 2014, responses to the 
prior motions, which we here incorporate by reference. As a result, the eligibility to 
pursue the visa petition filed by the Petitioner and, therefore, its legal standing in this proceeding, 
has not been established. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l) , motions to reopen and motions to reconsider must 
be filed by an "affected party" in an immigration proceeding, defined at 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(iii)(B) as 
follows: 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-W-M-C-
(B) Meaning of affected party. For purposes of this section and§§ 103.4 and 103.5 of 
this part, affected party (in addition to the Service) means the person or entity with legal 
standing in a proceeding. An affected party may be represented by an attorney or 
representative .... 
As just noted, however, the record does not establish the legal standing in this proceeding and 
therefore, it may not be considered an affected party, eligible to file a motion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l). In such cases, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v) requires: 
(A) Appeal filed by person or entity not entitled to file it- (1) Rejection without refund 
of filing fee. An appeal filed by a person or entity not entitled to file it must be rejected 
as improperly filed. In such a case, any filing fee the Service has accepted will not be 
refunded. 
The motion to reopen has been filed by the which is not established as an affected party in this 
matter. The motion is, therefore, not properly filed and, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l), must be denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-W-M-C-, ID# 15819 (AAO Feb. 22, 2016) 
2