dismissed EB-3 Case: Travel

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 30, 2023 In Re: 28841186 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Skilled Worker) 
The Petitioner, a travel agency, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a manager of travel and tours. It 
requests classification of the Beneficiary 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. 
§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to 
sponsor a noncitizen 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 initially approved the petition on May 10, 2006. The 
approval was revoked by the Director of the Nebraska Service Center on November 30, 2009 on 
multiple grounds. The Director determined that the Petitioner committed fraud or willfully 
misrepresented material facts in the labor certification with respect to its work address and the familial 
relationship between the Beneficiary and the Petitioner's owner/corporate officers. Based on the 
determination of fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts, the Director invalidated the labor 
certification and revoked the approval of the petition, as it was not supported by a valid labor 
certification. As an additional ground for denial, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner did 
not establish its ability to pay the proffered wage in the years 2006, 2007, and 2008, and thus did not 
establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date of November 2, 2005, 
onward. 
We dismissed a subsequent appeal. Since the revocation of the petition in 2009, the Petitioner has 
filed, and we have dismissed, 14 combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now 
before us for the fifteenth time on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss both of 
the motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for 
the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new 
evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
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). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, the filing before us is not a motion to reopen and reconsider 
the denial of the petition, but our most recent decision of May 15, 2023, dismissing the Petitioner's 
fourteenth combined motion to reopen and reconsider in this matter. Accordingly, in reviewing the 
motion to reopen, we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it pertains to that decision. 
Here, the Petitioner does not provide new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior 
motion, but instead submits evidence of its tax returns that is already in the record. Because the 
Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have no 
basis to reopen our prior decision. 
Regarding the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner's contentions in their current motion merely reargue 
facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions concerning its ability to pay the 
proffered wage and whether it engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts in the 
labor certification. See e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to 
reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal 
and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). We will not 
re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2