dismissed EB-3

dismissed EB-3 Case: Religion

📅 Date unknown 👤 Organization 📂 Religion

Decision Summary

The motion to reopen was denied because the moving party failed to establish it was the petitioner's successor-in-interest and therefore lacked standing. The motion did not provide new facts as required, instead reiterating previously submitted arguments and evidence.

Criteria Discussed

Motion To Reopen Successor-In-Interest Standing

View Full Decision Text

.
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
MATTER OF
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office
DATE: JULY 6, 2017
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER
The Petitioner, a church, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an Administrative Assistant under the
classification of a skilled worker. Section 203(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 203(b)(3)(A). The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition and
we dismissed the appeal filed by the . . which has subsequently
filed six motions to reopen or reconsider. We dismissed the last motion to reopen concluding that
the had not established it was an affected party and therefore lacked standing to file the
motion. A new motion to reopen is now before \lS and will also be denied.
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.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). New facts are facts
that are relevant to the issues raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the
proceeding, which includes those provided with the original petition. Reasserting previously stated
facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute new facts. A motion that
does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(4).
The instant motion is again filed by the which claims eligibility for the immigration benefit as
the Petitioner's successor-in-interest. In support of its motion, the provides two previously
submitted affidavits and the articles of incorporation for Our
review of the record finds the has reiterated the arguments it made on appeal and on prior
motions, arguments that were fully addressed in our dismissal of the appeal and denial of the prior
motions. The record does not demonstrate the is the Petitioner's successor-in-interest and the
has not provided new facts to overcome this finding. Accordingly, the motion does not meet
applicable requirements.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied.
Cite as Matter of, , ID# [656943] (AAO July 6, 2017)

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.