dismissed EB-3 Case: Garment Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-N-M-C-M-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 18,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a garment manufacturer, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a sewing machine 
operator. It requests his classification as an unskilled worker under the third-preference immigrant 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(iii). This category allows a U.S. business to sponsor a foreign national with less 
than two years of training or experience for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Beneficiary married 
in a prior attempt to evade immigration laws, barring the petition· s approval. On appeaL we 
affirmed the Director's decision. We also denied the subsequent motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. Upon 
review, we will deny the motions. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding 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 of law or USCIS 
policy. A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
On motion, the Petitioner reasserts the same arguments addressed in the previous motions and the 
Petitioner's brief is substantively identical to the previously submitted brief. We previously 
addressed the Petitioner's assertions in our decisions on the appeal and motions to reopen and 
reconsider. The Petitioner has not asserted new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding, and 
does not cite binding precedent decisions or other legal authority establishing that we or the director 
incorrectly applied the pertinent law or agency policy and that the prior decisions were erroneous 
based on the evidence of record at the time. Therefore. the motions do not satisfy applicable 
requirements. 
Matter qfT-N-M-C-M-, Inc. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter o(T-N-M-C-M-. Inc., 10# 804666 (AAO Aug. 18, 2017) 
2