dismissed EB-3 Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 06, 2023 In Re: 29207563 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Skilled Worker) 
The Petitioner, a wholesale importer of costume jewelry, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
marketing specialist and requests his classification 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. § l 153(b )(3)(A)(i). This employment-based classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor 
a noncitizen for lawful permanent residence to work in a position that requires at least two years of 
training or experience. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center revoked the approval of the petition, concluding (1) the 
record did not establish that the Beneficiary possessed the work experience required for the offered 
job, and (2) the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence of its ability to pay the proffered wage. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and affirmed the revocation decision, concluding the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary has the work experience required by the labor certification. 1 
Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which we also dismissed. The matter is now 
before us on motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&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. 
1 Because this issue was dispositive of the appeal, we reserved and did not address the Petitioner' s appellate arguments 
regarding its ability to pay the proffered wage. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (holding that "agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter 
of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible.). 
An immigrant pet1t10n for a skilled worker requires an individual labor certification from the 
Department of Labor and must be accompanied by evidence that the noncitizen beneficiary meets the 
education, training, or experience, and any other requirements of the individual labor certification. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(i) and (ii)(B). The Director revoked the approval of the petition, and we 
dismissed the subsequent appeal, because the record contained unresolved inconsistencies regarding 
the Beneficiary's employment history and insufficient independent, objective evidence to demonstrate 
that he had the 48 months of work experience needed to satisfy the requirement stated on the labor 
certification. 
In adjudicating the Petitioner's prior motion to reconsider, we acknowledged and addressed its claims 
that we (1) applied an incorrect standard of proof in weighing the evidence submitted, and (2) 
incorrectly determined the evidence provided to document his prior employment, which consisted of 
business registration documents for three foreign entities, was not independent and objective evidence. 
In doing so, we highlighted portions of our appellate decision in which we explained why the 
referenced evidence was insufficient to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. Accordingly, we 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish on motion that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued it. 
With the current motion, the Petitioner generally contests the correctness of our latest decision. The 
Petitioner once again contends that our office has given insufficient weight to "independent objective 
evidence that was submitted on behalf of the beneficiary" and focused instead on "minor discrepancies 
in the testimonies of beneficiary taken more than a decade ago during NIV application process." It 
maintains that the documentation it submitted to address these discrepancies was "genuine and 
accurate as they were issued by the governmental agencies of South Korea, Hong Kong and China," 
and questions why the evidence was "inexplicably and virtually discounted by USCIS." 
We disagree that the record presents only "minor discrepancies" regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment history or that such discrepancies could be explained by the passage of "more than a 
decade." The record reflects that, in the labor certification filed with the Department of Labor in 
March 2016, the Beneficiary certified that he was employed full-time as president ofl I 
Din South Korea from May 2005 until May 2013. The Petitioner was informed in a notice of intent 
to revoke that in May 2013, less than three years prior to the filing of the labor certification, the 
Beneficiary stated on a nonimmigrant visa application that he had been employd as the president of 
a Chinese company for the past four years, as president o~~-------~ from May 2009 until 
February 2013, and as president of a Hong Kong company from October 2005 until March 2009. 
The evidence the Petitioner submitted to resolve these discrepancies consisted of government-issued 
business registration documentation for all three foreign entities named on the Beneficiary's 
nonimmigrant visa application. On motion, the Petitioner maintains that this was the "next best 
secondary evidentiary documentation" available since the Beneficiary, as the owner of all three 
companies, cannot obtain experience letters from his prior employers. 
We discussed this evidence in detail in our appellate decision and explained why it was insufficient to 
resolve the discrepancies and to demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfied the 48-month work 
experience requirement stated on the labor certification. We do not, as suggested by the Petitioner on 
motion, question whether the foreign government issued documents are genuine. Rather, we 
2 
concluded that the evidence was insufficient to document the Beneficiary's 48 months of relevant 
work experience, as it did not demonstrate the details of his prior employment, including his job 
responsibilities, his dates of employment with each company, and whether he worked on a full-time 
basis. The Petitioner has not addressed these conclusions on motion. 
The Petitioner further asserts that we incorrectly emphasized that "[c]ounsel's assertions were not 
evidence," noting that such assertions "merely served to aid in explaining and clarifying the credible, 
foreign government issued evidentiary document[s]." However, we did not discount counsel's 
explanations pertaining to the foreign government-issued documentation. Rather, we emphasized that 
we could not accept counsel's explanations regarding the Beneficiary's submission of inconsistent 
information regarding his employment history. We emphasized that such explanation should be in the 
form of an affidavit or declaration from the Beneficiary himself: evidence that was not provided in 
response to the notice of intent to revoke, in support of the appeal, or on motion. 
Therefore, although the Petitioner challenges our decision dismissing its prior motion, it has not 
established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the 
time we issued it and has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. Therefore, the motion will be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3