dismissed EB-3 Case: Travel

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12126126 
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 . 1, 2020 
The Petitioner, a travel agency, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a manager of travel and tours. It 
requests ski11ed worker classification for the Beneficiary 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 petition was initially approved by the Director of the Texas Service Center on May 10, 2006. The 
approval was subsequently revoked on November 30, 2009, by the Director of the Nebraska Service 
Center, who found that the Petitioner committed fraud or misrepresented material facts with respect 
to its work address and the familial relationship between the Beneficiary and the Petitioner's 
owner /corporate officers . Based on the finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, 
the Director invalidated the labor certification and revoked the approval of the petition because it was 
not supported by a valid labor certification as required by 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(1)(3)(i) . The Director also 
found that the Petitioner did not establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the 
priority date of November 2, 2005, onward. 
The Petitioner filed an appeal , which we dismissed. The Petitioner has since then filed twelve motions 
to reopen and reconsider, eleven of which we have dismissed and the latest of which is currently before 
us .1 
Upon review, we wi11 dismiss the combined motions. 
I. MOTION TO REOPEN 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 103.5(a)(2). In prior decisions we found that the Petitioner had not established its ability to pay the 
1 Motions for the reopening or reconsideration of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as petitions 
for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 
323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proc eeding bears a "heavy burden ." 
See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. 
proffered wage in the years 2006-2008. In the current motion the Petitioner cites previously submitted 
evidence relating to those years which has already been considered in our previous decisions. No new 
facts are submitted with the current motion, nor any new documentation related to the Petitioner's 
ability to pay the proffered wage in the years 2006-2008. The Petitioner also reiterates previous 
assertions that no fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact was committed with regard to 
the familial relationship between itself and the Beneficiary. On this issue too, however, the Petitioner 
states no new facts and submits no new evidence. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening the proceedings with regard to 
its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date of the petition until the date of 
revocation and with regard to the finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact in the 
labor certification. 
II. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The Petitioner does not identify any incorrect application oflaw or 
policy in our prior decisions with regard to the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage during 
the years 2006-2008. The Petitioner reiterates previous assertions that it did not engage in fraud or 
willful misrepresentation of any material fact in the labor certification. These assertions were 
thoroughly discussed in our prior decisions, however, and the Petitioner does not identify any incorrect 
application of law or policy by us in those decisions. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration of our previous decisions 
with regard to the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date of 
the petition until the date of revocation and with regard to the finding of fraud or willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact in the labor certification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration of our prior decision, nor 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. 2 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2 The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of 
the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2