dismissed EB-3 Case: Construction

MATTER OF C-C-&A- LLC 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 23, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a construction company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an administrative support 
worker. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference 
immigrant category. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based "EB-3" immigrant classification allows a U.S. 
employer to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that 
requires at least two years of training or experience. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition, but subsequently revoked 
the approval after concluding that the Petitioner, due to unresolved discrepancie~ in the record about 
the Beneficiary's employment history, had not established that the Beneficiary had at least two years 
of qualifying experience, as required by the labor certification. The Petitioner filed a motion to 
reopen and reconsider, which the Director denied on the ground that it did not overcome the grounds 
for revocation. The Petitioner then filed an appeal, which we dismissed on the grounds that the 
Petitioner had not resolved the conflicting evidence in the record about the Beneficiary's work 
history and did not establish that the Beneficiary had at least two years of qualifying experience as 
required by the labor certification and for classification as a skilled worker. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
In a motion to reconsider the Petitioner must establish that the decision being challenged was based 
on an-incorrect application qf law or policy. The requirements of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
A motion to reconsider our dismissal of the appeal must establish that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. Id. We do not 
consider new facts or evidence in a motion to reconsider. A motion to rtconsider must also be 
supported by a pertinent' precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or 
statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland 
Matter of C-C-&A- LLC 
Security (DHS) policy. Id. A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be denied. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As discussed in our previous decision dismissing the appeal, the Director's revocation decision was 
based on findings that the Beneficiary's experience as described on the labor certification and in 
supporting letters was inconsistent with other records showing that the Beneficiary was in the United 
States during significant periods of time in which she claimed in this proceeding to be working in 
Hungary. The Director further found that the additional experience the Beneficiary claimed in 
response to the Director's notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) was also not persuasive because it was 
not previously listed on the labor certification and the supporting documentation was not sufficient 
to resolve prior contradictory evidence or establish that the Beneficiary was in fact employed full­
time in the additional jobs. On appeal the Petitioner offered further explanations for the conflicting 
evidence previously provided, but we found these explanations unconvincing and upheld the 
Director's finding that the Petitioner did not resolve the contradictions in the record. We concluded 
that the evidence submitted by the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had at least two 
years of qualifying experience as required by the labor certification and for classification as a skilled 
worker. 
In its motion to reconsider the Petitioner asserts that we. should reconsider previously submitted 
documentation relating to claims of employment in two different jobs that were either not listed or listed 
incorrectly on the labor certification. The Petitioner also asserts that we should reconsider evidence that 
inconsistent information previously provided by the Petitioner and the Beneficiary resulted from 
ineffective and fraudulent representation, not an intent to deceive U.S. officials. In sum, the Petitioner 
contends that the objective evidence of the Beneficiary's qualifying· employment supersedes the 
inconsistent information in the labor certification and that the Beneficiary had no incentive to fabricate 
any evidence. 
The Petitioner's motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider because it does not 
show that our dismissal of the appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or of USCIS or 
DHS policy. The Petitioner requests that we reconsider the evidence of the Beneficiary's 
employment history, which was already thoroughly discussed in our previous decision. The 
Petitioner disagrees with our finding(s) that the Beneficiary's qualifying employment has not been 
established, but has not cited to any pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory 
provision, or statement of policy to establish any incorrect application of law or policy in our 
decision. We also thoroughly discussed in our previous decision the Petitioner's claim that the 
Beneficiary received ineffective representation in earlier proceedings which resulted in the 
evidentiary discrepancies in the record. The Petitioner disagrees with our finding(s) that the alleged 
ineffective representation did not absolve the Beneficiary and the Petitioner of responsibility for 
conflicting evidence they provided, but has not cited to any pertinent precedent or adopted decision, 
statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of policy to demonstrate an incorrect application of 
law or policy in our decision. 
2 
Matter ofC-C-&A- LLC 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider 
under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for the reconsideration of our prior decision, nor 
established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought in this proceeding. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter o.fC-C-&A- LLC, [D# 1659842 (AAO Nov. 23, 2018) 
3