dismissed EB-3 Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-G-&T-LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 1, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a construction company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a tile installer. It requests 
his classification under the third-preference, immigrant category as a skilled worker. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment­
based, "EB-3" category allows a U.S. business to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent 
resident status to work in a job requiring at least two years of training or experience. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum employment experience 
and skills required for the offered position. We summarily dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, finding 
that the filing did not allege any erroneous conclusions of fact or statements of law. 
The matter is before us again on the Petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner 
asserts that, in support of the appeal, it submitted a statement arguing that the Director erred by 
disregarding evidence of the Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered position. 
Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must assert new facts, supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must assert a prior decision's misapplication of law or policy 
based on the record at that time. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that meets these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility. 
II. DISCUSSION 
The Petitioner filed its appeal in June 2018. The filing did not specify the basis of the appeal. But the 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, indicated that the Petitioner would submit a written brief, additional 
evidence, or both within 30 days of the appeal's filing. As of December 7, 2018, we had not received 
an additional submission from the Petitioner. We therefore summarily dismissed the appeal. See 
Matter of J-G-&T- LLC 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) (requiring summary dismissal "when the party concerned fails to identify 
specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal"). 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we erred in summarily dismissing its appeal by disregarding a 
July 2018 statement it submitted in support of the filing. It contends that the statement argued that the 
Director disregarded evidence of the Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered position. We, 
however, have no record of receiving a July 2018 statement supporting the appeal. The Form I-290B 
instructed the Petitioner to submit additional materials "to the AAO," rather than to the USCIS office 
that received the appeal or issued the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) (incorporating a form's 
instructions into the regulations). The Petitioner does not provide evidence of its submission of a July 
2018 statement, nor does it indicate where it purportedly sent the statement. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(a)(7)(i) (stating that USCIS only receives a benefit request "at the location designated for 
filing such benefit request"). As the Petitioner does not submit documentary evidence on motion to 
support its claims, the motion to reopen must be denied. 1 Further, the Petitioner has not established 
that, as of our appellate decision, we disregarded a statement from the Petitioner and therefore 
erroneously dismissed the appeal. We will therefore deny the motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The motion to reopen does not contain documentary evidence supporting new facts to overcome our 
prior decision. The motion to reconsider does not establish our misapplication oflaw or policy based 
on the record at that time. We will affirm our summary dismissal of the appeal for the forgoing 
reasons, with each considered an independent and alternate ground of affirmance. A petitioner bears 
the burden of establishing eligibility for a requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
Here, the Petitioner did not meet that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of J-G-&T-LLC, ID# 3979842 (AAO May 1, 2019) 
1 In support of its motion, the Petitioner submits copies of letters from its president and the Beneficiary regarding the 
Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered position. The Petitioner, however, previously submitted the Beneficiary's letter 
in response to the Director's request for additional evidence. It also previously submitted its president's letter in response 
to the Director's notice of intent to deny. Thus, contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), the evidence does not support "new 
facts." Moreover, these documents do not overcome our prior decision to summarily dismiss the appeal and therefore do 
not show cause to reopen the proceeding. 
2