dismissed EB-3 Case: Restaurant Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-M-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 20, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a restaurant, sought to employ the Beneficiary as a restaurant manager. It requested 
classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference immigrant category. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(B)(3)(A)(i). 
This employment-based "EB-3" immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a 
foreign national 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 initially approved the petition, but subsequently 
revoked the approval. The Director found that the Petitioner had dissolved, which automatically 
revoked the prior approval of the petition as of the date of approval. The Petitioner filed a motion to 
reopen and reconsider, which the Director rejected on the ground that it was untimely filed. The 
Beneficiary then filed an appeal, which we rejected on the ground that there are no appeal rights for 
automatic revocations under 8 C.F.R. § 205.1. 1 The matter is now before us on motion to reopen 
and motion to reconsider filed by the Petitioner. Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
The motion to reopen and reconsider 2 in this case is based on our previous rejection of the 
Beneficiary's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Petitioner did not cite to any regulation 
that allows for a motion to be filed on a rejected appeal. When we reject an appeal, there is no 
merits-based decision for us to review and therefore no basis for a motion. As such, the motions 
must be denied as improperly filed. 
Even if we were to accept the motions, the motions could not be granted as they do not establish that 
the appeal was rejected in error. In this case, the record shows that the Petitioner's business was 
dissolved on December 23, 2014. At that time, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 205.1 (2014) described 
1 We also noted that the Beneficiary had not been deemed an affected party with standing to file the appeal. 
2 A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion 
to reconsider must demonstrate 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. 
§ I 03.5(a)(3). 
Matter of C-M-C-
the various circumstances in which previously approved immigrant petitions would be automatically 
revoked. Pertinent to this case, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 205.l(a)(3)(iii)(D) (2014) provided that a 
petition's approval was automatically revoked upon termination of the employer's business in an 
employment-based preference case filed under section 203(b )(3) of the Act. 
Therefore, the Director found that because the Petitioner's business terminated in 2014, a fact that is 
not in dispute, the prior approval of the Form I-140 petition was automatically revoked, with 
retroactive effect to the date of its original approval in 2012. As noted in the Director's decision and 
in our appeal decision, we do not exercise appellate jurisdiction over automatic revocations under 
8 C.F.R. § 205.1. 3 Cf Matter of Zaidan, 19 I&N Dec. 297 (BIA 1985) (concluding that there is no 
provision for appellate review with the Board of Immigration Appeals when a petition's approval is 
automatically revoked pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 205 .1 ). 
As such, our previous decision to reject the Beneficiary's appeal was correct. Since there was no 
right to appeal the automatic revocation, there is likewise no right to file a motion contesting that 
decision. We also note that the current motion to reopen and reconsider was filed in the name of the 
dissolved Petitioner and signed by its former president. As the Petitioner no longer exists as a 
functioning business, it is not clear that the current motion was filed by a valid legal entity. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The regulations do not allow for motions to be filed on a rejected appeal. Thus, the motions before 
us were improperly filed and must be denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of C-H-C-, ID# 1512094 (AAO Sept. 20, 2019) 
3 By contrast, the right to appeal is specifically prescribed for revocations on other grounds as described in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 205.2 (Revocation on notice). 
2