dismissed EB-3 Case: Jewelry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 8, 2024 In Re: 31571568 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Skilled Worker) 
The Petitioner, a jewelry business, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a jeweler and 
precious stone metal worker. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the 
third preference immigrant classification. 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 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it is the same entity or a successor-in-interest to the entity listed on the ETA Form 9089, 
Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification); that it has the continuing 
ability to pay the proffered wage; and that the Beneficiary met the minimum education requirement 
stated on the labor certification. The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, 
which the Director dismissed. We summarily dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now 
before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
On appeal, the Petitioner identified "issues" raised in the Director's decision and provided copies of 
evidence already in the record. We summarily dismissed the appeal, as the Petitioner did not allege 
specific errors in the Director's decision or explain how the evidence overcomes the grounds for 
denial. 
On motion, the Petitioner again submits copies of evidence already in the record and states that it has 
"provided all the evidence required with its Form 1-140 in a timely manner to establish that it qualifies 
as the Successor-in-Interest." The Petitioner does not assert any errors oflaw or policy in our appellate 
decision. Nor does the Petitioner present new facts or provide supporting documentary evidence. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, "new facts" are facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on motion and 
that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original petition. 
Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute 
"new facts." 
Here, the Petitioner presents no new facts supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, we will 
dismiss the motion to reopen. 
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). 
In a motion to reconsider we do not consider new objections to the earlier denial. The Petitioner 
cannot use the present filing to make new allegations of error at prior stages of the proceeding. Here, 
the Petitioner does not identify any specific error oflaw or fact in our prior appeal decision. Nor does 
the Petitioner assert that our prior appeal decision did not follow the regulations and policy guidance. 
The Petitioner has not established proper grounds for reconsideration. The Petitioner cannot meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions; the motion must 
demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 
(BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit, in 
essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. For the reasons discussed 
above, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening the proceedings or reconsideration of 
our prior decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2