dismissed EB-3 Case: Computer Software

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTEROFE-I-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 17,2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of computer software services, sought to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a computer programmer. It sought his classification as a professional or skilled worker 
under the third preference classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act sections 203(b )(3)(i), 
(ii), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(3)(i)(ii). These classifications allow a U.S. employer to sponsor a 
professional with a bachelor's degree or a foreign national with 2 years of training or experience for 
lawful permanent resident status. 
After initially approving the petition on November 26, 2007, the Director, Nebraska Service Center, 
revoked the petition's approval on October 18, 2012. See section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155 
(authorizing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to revoke a petition's approval "at 
any time" for "good and sufficient" cause). The Director concluded that the Petitioner had gone out 
of business before the Beneficiary obtained lawful permanent residence and that the record did not 
establish a successor in interest to the Petitioner or the bonafides of the job opportunity. 
We affirmed the Director's conclusions and dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on February 18, 2014. 
We also agreed with the Director that the Petitioner willfully misrepresented a material fact on the 
accompanying Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment Certification (labor certification), 
approved by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 
The matter is now before us on the Petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner 
asserts that we erred in our conclusions. We will deny the motion to reopen and the motion to 
reconsider. 
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
A. The Sufficiency of the Motions 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration 
and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-1-
In the instant case, the Petitioner's Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, indicates its filing of 
both a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. However, the filing does not state new facts and 
is not supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. We will therefore deny the filing as a 
motion to reopen and consider it only as a motion to reconsider. 
B. Successor in Interest 
A labor certification remains valid only for the particular job opportunity and the geographic area of 
intended employment stated on it. 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(c) (2004). 1 A business other than an 
employer stated on a labor certification may use the certification only if it establishes itself as a 
successor in interest to the stated employer . See Matter of Dial Auto Repair Shop, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
481 (Comm 'r 1986). 
A successor in interest must satisfY three conditions. First, it must fully describe and document the 
transaction transferring ownership of all, or a relevant part of, the predecessor to it. /d. at 482. Second, 
it must demonstrate that the job opportunity remains the same as stated on a labor certification. ld 
Third, the successor must prove its eligibility for the immigrant visa in all respects, including its ability 
to pay the proffered wage. Id. at 483. 
In his notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) of May 25, 2012, the Director noted that online government 
records indicate the Petitioner's corporate suspension from doing business. See Cal. Sec'y of State, 
Bus. Programs, Bus. Search, at http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/ (accessed Apr. 25, 2016). The Director also 
noted that the termination of the Petitioner's business before the Beneficiary obtained lawful permanent 
residence would automatically revoke the petition's approval. See 8 C.F.R. § 205.l(a)(3)(iii)(D) . 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner stated that another corporation acquired it on January 1, 2010. 
The Petitioner provided a copy of an agreement indicating its purchase by another company for 
$780,000, a job offer portion of Form ETA 750 signed by the purported successor in interest, and a 
copy of the purported successor' s federal income tax return for 2011. In response to our notice of intent 
to dismiss/request for evidence (NOID/RFE) of August 27, 2013, the Petitioner also submitted a copy 
of receipt for $780,000 from the other company. 
The record on motion does not establish a successor relationship for immigration purposes between the 
Petitioner and the company that bought it. First, the record does not establish that the job opportunity 
remains the same. The accompanying labor certification states the geographic area of intended 
employment as California. On the job offer portion of Form ETA 750, the purported 
successor states that the Beneficiary will work in California. The municipalities of 
and are located in different Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). See U.S. Dep't of Labor, 
1 Because the instant labor certification was filed before March 28, 2005 , it is governed by the DOL' s prior regulation s. 
See Final PERM Rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 77326 , 77326 (Dec . 27, 2004) (stating that current DOL regulation s apply to labor 
certification applications filed on or after March 28, 2005) . In this decision , we will therefore cite to DOL 's prior 
regulation s as they existed in 2004 . 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-1-
Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, at http://www.tlcdatacenter.com/ OesWizardStep2.aspx? 
stateName= California (accessed Apr. 25, 2016). The record does not establish that the job opportunity 
in is within normal commuting distance of See 20 C.F.R. § 656.3 (defining the term 
"area of intended employment" as "the area within normal commuting distance of the place (address) of 
intended employment" and stating that the area of intended employment includes any location within 
the same MSA). 
The record also does not establish the purported successor's eligibility for the immigrant visa. The 
Petitioner submitted a copy of the purported successor's federal income tax return to establish its ability 
to pay the proffered wage as of2011. However, the record lacks evidence of the purported successor's 
ability to pay the proffered wage from January 1, 201 0, the date of its purchase of the petitioner. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) (requiring a petitioner to demonstrates its "continuing" ability to pay a proffered 
wage); see also Dial Auto, 19 I&N Dec. at 481 (finding that a purported successor had the ability to pay 
from the date it took over the business of the labor certification employer). 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we did not follow Dial Auto and a USCIS memorandum 
providing updated guidance on successor-in-interest determinations. See Memorandum from Donald 
Neufeld, Acting Assoc. Dir., Domestic Ops., USCIS, HQ 70/6.2, Successor-in-Interest Determinations 
in Acijudication of Form 1-140 Petitions (Aug. 6, 2009), at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ 
USCIS/Laws%20and%20Regulations/Memoranda/2009%20Memos%20By%20Monthl August%20 
2009/Successor-in-Interest-8-6-09.pdf (accessed Apr. 25, 20 16). 
However, as previously discussed, Dial Auto found that a successor must establish its ability to pay a 
proffered wage from the time it acquired a labor certification employer. Dial Auto, 19 I&N Dec. at 481. 
We have applied that reasoning to the facts of the instant case, finding that the Petitioner has not 
established the ability of its purported successor to pay the proffered wage from the January 1, 2010, 
date of acquisition. 
Also, the USCIS memo cited by the Petitioner states that a business need not acquire all of the assets 
and liabilities of a labor certification employer to be considered a successor in interest. Rather, the 
memo states that a business need only acquire the essential rights and liabilities needed to carry on the 
employer's business. 
However, our determination in the instant case does not stem from the fact that the Petitioner's 
purported successor did not acquire all of the Petitioner's assets and liabilities. Because we followed 
Dial Auto and the USCJS memo cited by the Petitioner, we reject the Petitioner's assertions on motion. 
The record does not 
establish a successor in interest to the Petitioner. Because the record indicates that 
the Petitioner's business terminated as of January 1, 2010, the petition's approval was automatically 
revoked pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(D). We will therefore affirm our prior decision. 
3 
Matter of E-1-
C. Willful Misrepresentation of a Material Fact on the Labor Certification 
A petition for an advanced degree professional must be accompanied by a valid, individual labor 
certification, an application for Schedule A designation, or documentation of a beneficiary's 
qualifications for a shortage occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(i). USCIS may invalidate a labor 
certification after its issuance upon a finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact 
involving the labor certification. 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(d) (2004). 
A willful misrepresentation of a material fact must be voluntary and deliberate, made with 
knowledge of its falsity. Forbes v. INS, 48 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir. 1995). A misrepresentation is 
material if has "a natural tendency to influence the decisions of the [government]." !d. at 442-43 
(citing Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759,772 (1988)). 
In the instant case, the record contains evidence that the Beneficiary and his wife were corporate 
officers and/or senior managers of the Petitioner at the time of the filing of the labor certification 
application on April 17, 2001. The Beneficiary signed his own Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, filed on July 20, 2007, on behalf of the Petitioner. He also signed a Form I-140, 
dated April 16, 2007, and an accompanying labor certification, dated March 30, 2001, on behalf of 
his wife as the Petitioner's "[p]resident." In addition, the Beneficiary's wife signed the instant 
accompanying labor certification, dated May 17, 2006, as the Petitioner's "[v]ice-[p]resident." 
In our prior decision, we found that the Petitioner willfully misrepresented a material fact on the 
accompanying labor certification because it did not disclose its relationships to the Beneficiary. But, 
upon reconsideration, we will withdraw that portion of our decision. 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner misrepresented its relationships to the Beneficiary. 
The Form ETA 750 did not ask the Petitioner to disclose any special relationships between it and the 
Beneficiary. Copies of DOL notices to the Petitioner during the labor certification proceedings also 
did not question its relationships to the Beneficiary. The Petitioner therefore did not make any 
representations involving the labor certification about its relationships to the Beneficiary. 
But the record still contains substantial evidence of the Petitioner's willful misrepresentation of a 
material fact on the labor certification. The Petitioner identified the offered position as computer 
programmer. The petition and labor certification for the Beneficiary's wife state his actual position 
with the Petitioner as president. The record therefore indicates that the Petitioner intended to employ 
the Beneficiary as president, not as computer programmer, and misrepresented the offered position 
on the labor certification. 
The Petitioner's misrepresentation of the offered position on the labor certification constituted a 
misrepresentation of a material fact. "A labor certification involving a specific job offer is valid 
only for the particular job opportunity." 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(c)(2). Thus, had the DOL known that 
the Petitioner intended to employ the Beneficiary in a position other than the one stated on the labor 
certification, the agency would not have approved the application. 
4 
Matter of E-1-
The record also indicates that the Petitioner's misrepresentation was willful. The differences 
between the offered position of computer programmer and the Beneficiary's actual position of 
president were so great that the Petitioner had to knowingly misrepresent the title and duties of the 
offered position on the labor certification. See Matter of Silver Dragon Chinese Rest., 19 I&N Dec. 
401, 404 (BIA 1986) (stating that "the officers and principals of a corporation are presumed to be 
aware and informed of the organization and staff of their enterprise"). 
The record further indicates that the Beneficiary misrepresented his employment history on the 
accompanying labor certification. The Beneficiary attested that he was "unemployed" from August 
1998 until at least the filing of the labor certification on April 17, 200 I. But, as previously indicated, 
he signed a labor certification for his wife as the Petitioner's president on March 30, 2001. 
The Beneficiary's misrepresentation regarding his employment history involved a material fact. Had 
the DOL known that the Beneficiary was the Petitioner's president, the agency likely would have 
questioned the bona fides of the job opportunity and might have denied the application. See 20 
C.F.R. § 656.20(c)(8) (requiring a labor certification employer to certify that a job opportunity has 
been and is clearly open to any qualified US. worker). 
The misrepresentation also appears to be willful. The Beneficiary disclosed his position as the 
Petitioner's president on his wife's labor certification application less than a month before the 
submission of the instant labor certification application on his behalf. The record therefore indicates 
that the omission of his position with the Petitioner on his own application was willful and designed 
to conceal his relationship to the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner asserts that the record does not support a finding of willful misrepresentation of a 
material fact. Citing Matter of Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408 (BIA 1998), the Petitioner states that we 
must establish willful misrepresentation of a material fact by clear and convincing evidence. 
But Tijam is distinguishable from the instant case. Tijam involved a respondent charged with 
deportability based on willful misrepresentation of a material fact at the time of her entry into the 
United States. Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. at 409. Thus, in that case, the Act required the immigration 
service to prove the respondent's deportability, and thus her willful misrepresentation of material 
fact, by clear and convincing evidence. See section 240(c)(3) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § II29a(c)(3); see 
also W.oodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (!966). 
In contrast, the instant Petitioner is in visa petition revocation proceedings. In these proceedings, the 
Petitioner bears the burden of proof, which never shifts to the government. See section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; see also Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 589 (BIA 1988). Thus, we need 
only support a finding of misrepresentation of a material fact with substantial evidence. See, e.g.. 
Tongatapu Woodcraft Haw., Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984) (requiring the 
immigration service to produce substantial evidence to support the revocation of a petition). 
5 
Matter of E-1-
As discussed above, substantial evidence supports findings that both the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary misrepresented material facts on the accompanying labor certification. We will 
therefore affirm our prior decision, and the accompanying labor certification will remain invalidated. 
D. The Bona Fides of the Job Opportunity 
As previously indicated, by signing the accompanying labor certification, the Petitioner certified that 
"[t]he job opportunity has been·and is clearly open to any U.S. worker." 20 C.F.R. § 656.20(c)(8) 
(2004). As the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) explained in Matter of 
Modular Container Systems, Inc., the regulation at former 20 C.F.R. § 656.20(c)(8) "infuses the 
recruitment process with the requirement of a bona fide job opportunity: not merely a test of the job 
market." Modular Container, 89-INA-228, 1991 WL 223955 at *7 (BALCA 1991) (en bane). 
I d. 
Where the alien for whom labor certification is sought is in a position to control 
hiring decisions or where the alien has such a dominant role in, or close personal 
relationship with, the sponsoring employer's business that it would be unlikely that 
the alien would be replaced by a qualified U.S. applicant, the question arises whether 
the employer has a bona fide job opportunity. 
We may deny a petition accompanied by a labor certification that does not comply with DOL 
regulations. See Matter ofSunoco Energy Dev. Co., 17 I&N Dec. 283, 284 (Reg'! Comm'r 1979) 
(upholding a petition's denial where a petitioner did not intend to employ a beneficiary in the area of 
intended employment stated on the accompanying labor certification pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 
§ 656.30(c)(2)). 
To determine the bona fides of a job opportunity, we must consider multiple factors, including but 
not limited to, whether a foreign national: is in a position to control or influence hiring decisions 
regarding an offered position; is related to corporate directors, officers, or employees; incorporated 
or founded a company; has an ownership interest in it; is involved in its management; sits on its 
board of directors; is one of a small group of employees; and has qualifications matching specialized 
or unusual job duties or requirements stated on an accompanying labor certification. !d. at !'8. We 
must also consider whether a foreign national's pervasive presence and personal attributes would 
likely cause a petitioner to cease operations in the foreign national's absence and whether the 
employer complied with DOL regulations and otherwise acted in good faith. !d. 
In the instant case, some Modular Container factors indicate the availability of the job opportunity to 
U.S. workers. The record does not indicate that the Beneficiary incorporated or founded the 
Petitioner, or that he has an ownership interest in the company. The record also does not indicate 
that he has qualifications matching specialized or unusual job duties. 
However, as previously indicated, the record contains evidence that the Beneficiary and his wife 
were corporate officers and/or senior managers of the Petitioner at the time of the labor 
6 
Matter of E-I-
certification's filing. The Beneficiary signed his own Form I-140, on behalf of the Petitioner. He 
also signed a Form I-140 and accompanying labor certification on behalf of his wife as the 
Petitioner's "[p]resident." In addition, the Beneficiary's wife signed the accompanying labor 
certification as the Petitioner's "[ v ]ice-[p ]resident." 
Thus, multiple Modular Container factors indicate that the offered position was not clearly available 
to U.S. workers. The record indicates that the Beneficiary was related to his wife, who was a 
corporate officer and/or manager of the Petitioner, and that he himself wa's involved in the 
Petitioner's management as its president. The record also indicates that the Beneficiary was one of 
a small group of employees. Copies of the Petitioner's federal income tax returns from 2001 
through 2009 do not reflect any salaries or wages paid to employees during that period. 
The Petitioner provided copies of its recruitment materials for the offered position during the labor 
certification process. The materials indicate that no U.S. workers applied for the position. However, 
the Beneficiary's wife signed the Petitioner's recruitment report, indicating her involvement and 
possible influence on the recruitment efforts. Thus, considering all of the Modular Container 
factors, the record does not establish the clear availability of the offered position to U.S. workers. 
Citing Matter of Paris Bakery Corp., 88-INA-337, 1990 WL 1232931 (BALCA 1990) (en bane), the 
Petitioner notes that a familiar relationship between a beneficiary and a petitioner's principal does 
not necessarily disqualify a job opportunity from being bona fide. In Paris Bakery, BALCA found 
that the job opportunity was clearly open to U.S. workers despite the foreign national's relationship 
to the employer's president, his brother. BALCA found that the employer demonstrated "a genuine 
need" for an employee with the foreign national's qualifications. Paris Bakery, 1990 WL 1232931 
at *3. 
In the instant case, the record does not similarly establish the Petitioner's need for an employee with 
the Beneficiary's qualifications. Also, unlike the foreign national in Paris Bakery, the record 
indicates that the Beneficiary, in addition to his familiar relationship to his wife, was himself an 
officer and/or senior manager of the Petitioner. We therefore find the instant case distinguishable 
from Paris Bakery. 
The Petitioner also asserts that its recruitment documentation demonstrates the availability of the 
position to U.S. workers. However, as previously discussed, the involvement of the Beneficiary's 
wife in the recruitment efforts undermines the evidential value of the recruitment documentation. 
Further considering the Petitioner's small number of employees, the Beneficiary's status as an 
officer or senior manager of the Petitioner, and his relationship to his wife who also served as an 
officer and/or manager, the record does not establish the clear availability of the position to U.S. 
workers. 
The record does not establish the bona fides of the job opportunity. We will therefore affirm our 
prior decision and deny the motion to reconsider. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-1-
E. The Beneficiary's Qualifying Experience 
Although not addressed in our prior decision, the record at the time of the petition's approval also 
does not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying experience for the offered position. 
A petitioner must establish a beneficiary's possession of all the education, training, and experience 
specified on an accompanying labor certification by a petition's priority date. 8 C.F.R. §§ 
103.2(b)(l) , (12); see also Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 l&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l 
Comm'r 1977); }.1atter ofKatigbak. 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, we must examine the job offer portion of an 
accompanying labor certification to determine the minimum requirements of an offered position. 
We may neither ignore a term of the labor certification, nor impose additional requirements. See 
K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Madany v. Smith, 696 
F.2d 1008, 1012-13 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Stewart Infra-Red Commissary of Mass., Inc. v. Coomey. 661 
F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1981). 
In the instant case, the petition's priority date is April 17, 2001, the date an office in the DOL's 
employment service system accepted the accompanying labor certification application for 
processing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). The labor certification states the minimum requirements of the 
offered position of computer programmer as a U.S. bachelor of science degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree in engineering, plus 2 years of experience in the job offered. The labor 
certification indicates that experience in a related occupation is unacceptable. 
The Beneficiary attested on the accompanying labor certification to more than 6 years of qualifying 
experience. He stated the following experience: 
• About 6 years, 8 months of experience as a computer programmer for 
Romania from November 1991 to August 1998; and 
• About 1 year, 1 month of experience as a computer programmer for 
Romania from July 1997 to August 1998. 
m 
m 
The Beneficiary did not state the hours of employment for each position as instructed by the Form ETA 
750. The record suggests that at least part of his employment was part-time in nature, as the labor 
certification indicates that his positions at and were concurrent. 
A petitioner must support a beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience with letters from employers. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A). The letters must provide the names, addresses, and titles of the employers, 
and descriptions of a beneficiary's experience. !d. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence of September 6, 2007, the Petitioner submitted letters 
on the stationery of and The letter on stationery stated the Beneficiary's 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-1-
employment from November 1992 to March 1997 as a project manager. The letter on 
stationery stated his employment from April 1997 to May 1998 as a production systems manager. 
The letters on and stationery contain different position titles and dates of employment 
than indicated on the accompanying labor certification. The letters are also nearly identical in format 
and font, suggesting that they do not constitute independent, objective evidence of the Beneficiary's 
experience. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies for record by independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
In response to the Director's notice of intent to deny of November 2, 2007, the Petitioner submitted 
another letter on different stationery. The second letter contains a more detailed description 
of the Beneficiary's experience. The Petitioner also submitted copies of the Beneficiary's monthly 
payroll records at from November 1992 to March 1997. 
The record does not explain why the second letter is on different stationery than the first letter. 
However, more importantly, none of the letters submitted establish the Beneficiary's qualifying 
experience in the job offered as specified on the accompanying labor certification. 
Experience in the job offered means experience performing the "major job duties" of the offered 
position as indicated on a labor certification. See Matter of Maple Derby, Inc., 1989-INA-185, 1991 
WL 120137, *3 (BALCA 1991) (en bane). 
In the instant case, the accompanying labor certification states the job duties of the offered position of 
computer programmer as "[d]evelop[ing] software programs for computer Internet security, creat[ing] 
systems applications for various programs V.F. P. applications, build[ing] and manag[ing] data bases." 
The letter on stationery states the Beneficiary's job duties as "build[ing] applications using 
Visual FoxPro for managing in real-time production operations." The letter does not state that the 
Beneficiary's duties included developing software programs for computer internet security, or building 
and managing data bases as specified on the accompanying labor certification. 
The first letter on stationery states the Beneficiary's job duties as "develop[ing] system 
applications using FoxPro for accounting and inventory needs." This letter also does not state that the 
Beneficiary's duties included developing software programs for computer internet security, or building 
and managing data bases as specified on the accompanying labor certification. 
The second letter on stationery details the Beneficiary's creation of bookkeeping software using 
FoxPro. However, like the other letters, the second letter does not state that the Beneficiary's 
duties included developing software programs for computer internet security, or building and managing 
data bases as specified on the accompanying labor certification. 
Therefore, the record at the time of the petition's approval did not establish the Beneficiary's possession 
of at least 2 years of experience in the job offered as specified on the accompanying labor certification. 
The petition remains revoked for this additional reason. 
9 
Matter of E-I-
II. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's filing does not state new facts and is not supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence. We will therefore deny the filing as a motion to reopen. 
The record on motion contains substantial evidence that both the Petitioner and the Beneficiary willfully 
misrepresented material facts on the accompanying labor certification. We will therefore affirm our 
prior decision, and the labor certification will remain invalidated. The record does not establish the 
bona fides of the job opportunity. We will therefore also aflirm our prior decision for this reason and 
deny the motion to reconsider. The record also does not establish the Beneficiary's qualifYing 
experience for the offered position. 
For the foregoing reasons, the motion will be denied, with each considered an independent and alternate 
ground of denial. In visa revocation proceedings, as in visa petition proceedings, a petitioner bears the 
burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act; Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 
589. Here, the instant Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofE-1-, lD# 10671 (AAO June 17, 2016) 
10