dismissed EB-3 Case: Retail Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18668508 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for a Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 22, 2021 
The Petitioner, a convenience store with gas station, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a store 
manager . It requests 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition on two grounds : the Director determined 
that the Petitioner did not establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority 
date onward or that the Beneficiary had two years of qualifying experience by the priority date, as 
required to meet the minimum requirements of the labor certification . The Petitioner filed an appeal, 
which we dismissed on the same grounds . The Petitioner then filed a motion to reopen and a motion 
reconsider. In our decision dismissing the motions we withdrew our previous finding that the 
Petitioner did not establish its ability to pay the proffered wage, but affirmed our other previous finding 
that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary gained at least two years of qualifying 
experience by the priority date of September 6, 2017. The Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen 
and motion to reconsider on the remaining issue of the Beneficiary's qualifying experience . We 
dismissed the motions . 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. Upon review , we will dismiss the motion . 
A motion to reconsider must demonstrate that our previous 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 . See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
In our previous decision we referenced the evidentiary shortcomings and discrepancies related to the 
Beneficiary's alleged experience at a store in Pakistan which had not been remedied or explained in 
earlier proceedings. We focused on one evidentiary item in particular - the photos of the inconsistent 
store signage - and concluded that "[t]he failure of the Petitioner and the Beneficiary to explain the 
inconsistencies in their photographic evidence casts doubt on the reliability of all the evidence 
submitted in these proceedings in support of the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary gained at least 
two years of qualifying experience atl lin Pakistan." 
In the current motion to reconsider the Petitioner asserts that the AAO "did not consider the photos in 
their proper context" and maintains that the photos are real. According to the Petitioner, the one sign 
with the word "bakery" was a misspelling and only a draft of the signage that was ultimately adopted, 
which it asserts correctly identified the store as I I. The Petitioner 
resubmits copies of two photos of the inconsistent signage that were already in the record. 
Despite the Petitioner's contention, the current motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider because it does not allege any incorrect application of law or policy in our previous 
decision, as required in 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, we will dismiss the motion. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2