dismissed EB-3 Case: Cosmetology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 21, 2024 In Re: 32418117 
Motions on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Skilled Worker) 
The Petitioner, a former sole proprietor of beauty supply stores, sought to employ the Beneficiary as 
a wigmaker. He requested the Beneficiary's classification under the employment-based, third­
preference (EB-3) immigrant visa category as a "skilled worker." See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). Businesses may sponsor 
noncitizens for permanent residence in this category to work in jobs requiring at least two years of 
training or experience. Id. 
After fust granting the filing, the Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the petition's approval. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, affuming the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualifying experience for the offered job or the requested immigrant 
visa category. See In Re: 24544158 (AAO Feb. 7, 2023). We reserved consideration of the Director's 
findings that the Petitioner did not establish his ability to pay the offered job's proffered wage or his 
continuing intent to employ the Beneficiary in the job. Id. We then dismissed combined motions to 
reopen and reconsider by the Petitioner's son, most recently finding that he lacked standing to submit 
them. See In Re: 28407817 (AAO Jan. 17, 2024). 
The matter returns to us on the Beneficiary's combined motions to reopen and reconsider. He asserts 
eligibility to file the motions based on his qualifications to "port" to a new employer or job. See 
section 204(j) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j); Matter ofV-S-G-Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-06 (AAO 
Nov. 11, 2016) (requiring beneficiaries' treatment as "affected parties" in revocation proceedings if 
they qualify and properly apply to port under section 204(j) of the Act). He submits additional 
evidence and argues eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In these revocation proceedings, the Beneficiary bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 589 (BIA 1988). Upon review, we 
conclude that, while he has standing to file the motions, they exceed the scope of our review. We will 
therefore dismiss them. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state 
new facts supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
In contrast, a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision misapplied law or policy 
based on the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). On motion, we review only 
our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Beneficiary's Standing 
We will first consider the Beneficiary's eligibility to port- and thus whether we must treat him as an 
affected party in this matter. The motion to reopen contains proof that, since our prior decision, the 
Beneficiary filed with the Director a Form I-485 Supplement J, Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer 
or Request for Job Portability Under INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] Section 204(j). The 
Beneficiary requested to port to the business of the Petitioner's son as a wigmaker. Thus, consistent 
with V-S-G-, the Beneficiary properly requested to port. See Matter of V-S-G-, Adopted Decision 
2017-06 at *14. 
The Beneficiary must also demonstrate that: 1) he filed an application for adjustment of status that 
remained unadjudicated for at least 180 days; and 2) his new job is in the same or similar occupational 
classification as the job the Petitioner offered. See section 204(j) of the Act. A letter from the 
Petitioner's son indicates that he has offered the Beneficiary the same job that the Petitioner offered. 
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary's new job is in the same 
occupational classification as the initial offered job. 
The record further establishes that the Beneficiary filed an adjustment application that has remained 
unadjudicated for more 180 days. USCIS records confirm that he filed a Form I-485, Application for 
Adjustment of Status, in September 2004. USCIS denied the application in December 2007. But it 
has remained pending since the Agency reopened it in October 2016. 
The Beneficiary has demonstrated his eligibility and proper request to port. Thus, under V-S-G-, we 
will treat him as an affected party in these proceedings and accept his combined motions. 
B. The Motions' Sufficiency 
The motion to reopen contains additional evidence regarding the purported abilities of the Petitioner 
and his son to continuously pay the proffered wage. The motion to reconsider argues that, not only 
did the Petitioner and his son have the ability to pay the proffered wage, but that they had the intent to 
employ the Beneficiary in the offered job and that he has the qualifying experience for the job. 
As previously indicated, we review only our latest decision. The scope of a motion is limited to "the 
prior decision," and the motion's jurisdiction is limited to the official who made "the latest decision 
in the proceeding." See 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i), (ii). Thus, we consider evidence and arguments 
only to the extent they pertain to our latest decision. 
2 
Our latest decision did not substantively address the Beneficiary's experience, the Petitioner and his 
son's ability to pay the proffered wage, or their intent to employ the Beneficiary in the offered job. 
Rather, we dismissed the prior motions solely because the Petitioner's son lacked standing to file them. 
The Beneficiary's motions do not address the factual or legal correctness of our latest decision, or 
otherwise address the lack of standing of the Petitioner's son. 
Motions are generally disfavored because they indefinitely prolong and delay proceedings. See INS 
v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107 (1988) ("There is a strong public interest in bringing litigation to a close.") 
Before his unfortunate death, the Petitioner filed an appeal and had a fair opportunity to contest the 
petition's revocation. After that, his son filed two motions, and we determined that his son lacked 
standing. 1 Only now, in the third motion in this case, does the Beneficiary attempt to insert himself 
into the proceedings. While we recognize his eligibility for treatment as an affected party in revocation 
proceedings, he must comply with motion requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) (requiring 
dismissal of a motion "that does not meet applicable requirements"). 
The Beneficiary's evidence and arguments on motion exceed the scope of our review. We must 
therefore dismiss the motions. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 In our last decision, we noted that: 
The Petitioner's son states that he received his father's business in probate proceedings after his father's 
death. He says that he continues to operate the business as a sole proprietorship from the same locations 
and under the same name as his father did. He also states that he offers the same position to the 
Beneficiary. But, because the Petitioner's business was a sole proprietorship and his son has not 
demonstrated his father's transfer of its ownership before his death, the business terminated when he 
died. See Ga. Sec'y of State, Ga. Corps. Div., "Which Legal Entity is Right for Your Business?" 
sos.ga.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/legal_entity.pdf ("The sole proprietor has total control of the 
business. The problem with total control is that if the owner dies, the business ceases to exist."); see 
also Vernon v. Schuster, 688 N.E.2d 1172, 1177 (Ill. 1997) (holding that a seller's sole proprietorship 
ceased to exist upon his death). Thus, the Petitioner's son operates a different business than his father, 
and he has not established himself as an affected party in these proceedings. 
3