dismissed EB-3 Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-N-M-C-M-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 23,2017 
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. The Director concluded 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 found that the record did not establish the 
Petitioner's ability to pay the profiered wage, or the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum 
experience required for the offered position. See Matter of T-N-M-C-M-, Inc., ID# 77808 (AAO 
Nov. 15, 2016). 
On motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, the Petitioner resubmits evidence and asserts the 
bona .fides of the Beneficiary's prior marriage, its ability to pay the proffered wage, and his 
qualifying experience. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION TO REOPEN 
A motion to reopen must contain documentary evidence of new facts. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Here, 
documentary evidence accompanies the Petitioner's submission, but the record already contains 
those documents. Thus, contrary to motion requirements, the evidence does not support new facts. 
We will therefore deny the motion to reopen. 
II. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
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. § 1 03.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider must be supported by a 
Matter ofT-N-M-C-M-. Inc. 
pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security policy. For the 
following reasons, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not establish our incorrect application 
of law or policy. 
A. Marriage Fraud Bar 
In our prior decision, we found substantial and probative evidence of marriage fraud based on the 
statement of the Beneficiary's former U.S. citizen spouse that he "only married me for a green card." 
If a beneficiary married in a prior attempt to evade immigration laws, USCIS cannot approve a 
petition on his or her behalf. Section 204(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c). To trigger this 
provision, a record must contain "substantial and probative evidence" of marriage fraud. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(l )(ii). A petitioner overcomes this "marriage fraud bar" by establishing, by a 
preponderance of evidence, the bona fides of the marriage in question. Matter qj'Laureano, 19 l&N 
Dec. 1, 3 (BIA 1983 ). A marriage is bona fide if, as of the union, the couple intended to establish a 
life together. !d. 
As was discussed at length in our prior decision, the record lacks sufficient, objective evidence of the 
couple's intention, as of the marriage, to establish a life together. On motion, the Petitioner renews 
arguments previously made on appeal asserting that the evidence establishes the bona fides of the 
marriage. However, as was previously detailed, the Beneficiary's atlidavit lacks details of the 
couple's courtship and describes their relationship in vague terms, atlidavits from his relatives and 
friends are brief and virtually identical, photographs of the couple appear to reflect only two days in 
which they were together, and sales receipts in the name of the Beneficiary's spouse do not support 
his claimed purchase of jewelry for her. Thus, contrary to the Petitioner's assertions on motion, the 
record does not establish the bona fides ofthe marriage 
B. The Petitioner's Ability to Pay the Proffered Wage 
The Petitioner also asserts its ability to pay the annual proffered wage of $24,050 from the petition's 
priority date of March 3, 2011, onward. 1 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) (requiring a petitioner to 
demonstrate its continuing ability to pay a proffered wage, from a petition's priority date until a 
beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence). 
As we stated in our appellate decision, the Petitioner established its ability to pay the profTered wage 
in 2011 and 2012 based payments to the Beneficiary. But the record does not establish its ability to 
pay thereafter. Copies of the Petitioner's federal income tax returns in following years are 
incomplete and thus do not establish its possession of annual amounts of net income or net current 
assets sufficient to pay the proffered wage. Also, the Petitioner did not provide information to 
demonstrate its ability to pay the combined proffered wages of this and its two other petitions that 
1 
The priority date of a petition accompanied by a labor certification is the date the Department of Labor accepted the 
labor application for processing. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
2 
Matter ofT-N-M-C-M-, Inc. 
remained pending after this petition's priority date. Thus, contrary to the Petitioner's assertions on 
motion, the record does not establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the 
petition's priority date onward. 
C. The Beneficiary's Qualifying Experience 
The record also does not establish, as the labor certification requires, the Beneficiary's possession of 
at least three months' experience in the offered position of sewing machine operator. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(D) (requiring evidence of a beneficiary's qualifying experience to accompany a 
petition for an unskilled worker). 
The Petitioner's motion does not overcome the discrepancies described in our previous decision 
concerning the Beneficiary's claimed employment experience. Although the Petitioner discusses 
previously submitted evidence, it does not explain the statements of a man who identified himself to 
USCIS officers in India as the sole proprietor of the Beneficiary's claimed former employer and told 
the officers that the business had never employed anyone with the Beneficiary's name. The 
Petitioner asserts that the man did not work at the business during the Beneficiary's tenure there. 
The record, however, does not explain the man's testimony and supporting evidence identifying him 
as the business's sole proprietor since before the Beneficiary's tenure. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record by 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). In addition, the record does not 
establish the Beneficiary's ability, as specified on the labor certification, "to operate all types of 
sewing machines used by the employer." Although the Petitioner's manager asserted that the 
Beneficiary had this ability before the company hired him, the record lacks sufficient, independent 
evidence that he met this requirement by the petition's priority date. Thus, the record on motion 
does not establish the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum experience required for the offered 
position. 
On motion, the Petitioner reiterates arguments previously made on appeal, but does not support its 
claims with any pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or 
statement of USCIS or Department of Homeland Security policy to establish that our prior decision 
was based on the incorrect application of law or policy. As such, the motion to reconsider must be 
denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motions do not state new facts, establish our incorrect application of law or policy, 
or demonstrate eligibility for the benefit sought. We will therefore affirm our appellate decision. 
Matter ofT-N-M-C-M-, Inc. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofT-N-M-C-M-, Inc., ID# 316470 (AAO June 23, 2017) 
4