dismissed EB-3 Case: Health Care

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 24, 2023 In Re : 28255752 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Skilled Worker) 
The Petitioner, a provider of health care products and services, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an 
area immunoassay and clinical chemistry specialist. It requests his classification as a skilled worker 
under the third preference immigrant classification . 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 noncitizen 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 denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary met the minimum education requirements stated on the labor 
certification. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal of the Director's decision. The Petitioner 
subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, followed by two motions to 
reconsider , and we dismissed all three motions . The matter is now before us on motion to reconsider . 
8 C .F.R. § 103.5(a). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369 , 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior 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). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
As noted, the Director denied the Form 1-140 based on a determination that the record did not establish 
the Beneficiary met the minimum education requirements for the offered position as stated on the labor 
certification. 1 In dismissing the Petitioner's appeal and three subsequent motions, we have considered 
1 Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer obtains an approved labor 
certification (ETA Fonn 9089) from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
I 182(a)(5). Second, the employer files an immigrant visa petition (Form 1-140) with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
the Petitioner's legal arguments, as well as additional evidence submitted in support of the Petitioner's 
motion to reopen, which included evidence of its recruitment efforts. Our prior decisions are part of 
the record of proceeding and are incorporated here by reference. Consistent with the Director's 
decision, we have concluded that the labor certification accompanying this petition, when viewed as 
a whole, indicates that the position requires a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree as a 
minimum education requirement. The record reflects the Beneficiary, whose foreign degree is 
equivalent to two and one-half years of undergraduate study, does not possess such a degree and 
therefore does not meet the stated minimum requirements. A beneficiary must meet all the 
requirements of the offered position set forth on the labor certification by the priority date of the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting 
Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
In our latest decision dismissing the Petitioner's third motion, we concluded it did not establish, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), that we incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in our decision 
dismissing its second motion. Rather, we determined that the Petitioner's motion to reconsider 
reiterated legal arguments and cited to non-binding authorities that we had previously reviewed and 
addressed in our two prior decisions. 
With this fourth motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior adverse decisions and 
asserts that we have continually erred in upholding the denial of this petition. Its brief is substantially 
similar in content to the briefs provided in support of its three previous motions to reconsider, and we 
have thoroughly addressed the legal arguments made in our decisions. The Petitioner does not 
articulate or demonstrate how we misapplied the law or USCIS policy in our decision dated January 
25, 2023. While the Petitioner continues to disagree with USCIS' assessment of the stated minimum 
requirements for the offered position as stated on the labor certification, it has not raised any additional 
legal arguments in support of its own interpretation of those requirements. 
In sum, the Petitioner's contentions in the current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have 
already considered in our previous decisions. See e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 
2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same 
brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board 
decision"). The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration of our prior decision. We 
will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, if USCIS approves the petition, the beneficiary 
may apply for an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, adjustment of status in the United States. See section 245 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
2