dismissed EB-3 Case: Electrical Contracting

MATTER OF 1-C-E-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: .IAN. I L 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an electrical contractor, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a low voltage system 
installer. It requests classification of the Beneficiary 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). This 
employment-based 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 
expenence. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition because the offered position does 
not require at least two years of experience or training as required for classification as a skilled 
worker. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us. We affirmed the Director's decision and denied a 
subsequent motion to reopen. 
On a motion to reconsider, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Beneficiary qualities as 
a skilled worker based on his two years of relevant post-secondary education. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements of a motion and show proper cause for 
granting the motion. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .5(a)(l ). A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on 
the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
A motion to reconsider must 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 Security (DHS) policy. 
Matter of 1-C-E-, Inc. 
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
Section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 153(b)(3)(A)(i), defines "skilled workers" as "qualified 
immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph. of 
performing skilled labor (requiring at least two years training or experience). not of a temporary nature. 
for which qualified workers are not available in the United States:· 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B) states that "[t]he mm1mum requirements for [the 
skilled worker] classification are at least two years of training or experience." Relevant post­
secondary education may be considered as training. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2). The determination of 
whether the offered position is for a skilled worker is based on the requirements of position as set forth 
on the labor certification. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(4). 
In this case, section 1-1.4 of the labor certification states as the primary requirement that an applicant 
must have completed vocational high school with a major field of study in electro-technic or any 
related field. We held in our prior decisions that the primary requirement of the labor certification 
does not require a minimum of at least two years of training or experience. Although Section 1-1.8 
states that two years of related experience is acceptable as an "alternate combination of education and 
experience," because the labor certification permits an individual to qualify for the offered position 
with less than two years of training or experience, the petition cannot be approved in the skilled 
worked category. This ground of ineligibility was discussed at length in our appellate decision and 
in the subsequent motion denial. 
On its current motion, the Petitioner, through counsel, asserts that it provided evidence of the 
Beneficiary's two years of relevant post-secondary education in its motion to reopen. However, our 
prior decision was not based on the Beneficiary's qualifications. but rather found that the labor 
certification did not require a minimum of two years of training or experience, as required for the 
position to be eligible for skilled worker classification. The Petitioner does not address this ground of 
ineligibility on motion to reconsider and has not shown that our prior finding was incmTect based on the 
evidence of record. Further, the motion to reconsider is not supported by any pertinent precedent or 
adopted decisions, or a statement of US CIS or DHS policy. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record. nor has the Petitioner 
demonstrated eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of'l-C-E-. Inc., ID# 906746 (AAO Jan. II. 2018) 
2