dismissed EB-3 Case: Travel And Tours

U.S. Citizenship 
and Inunigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-T-M-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR 19, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a travel agency, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "manager, travel & tours." It 
requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference immigrant 
category. See section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(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. The approval was 
subsequently revoked 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 eight motions 
to reopen and reconsider, seven of which we denied and the last of which is currently before us. The 
Petitioner asserts that it did not commit fraud or willfully misrepresent material facts in the labor 
certification process or elsewhere in these proceedings, and that the evidence of record establishes its 
continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward. 
Upon review, the combined motions will be denied. 
I. LAW 
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 establish that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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). A motion to reconsider must be supported by a pertinent precedent or 
Matter ofR-T-M-, Inc. 
adopted decision, a statutory or regulatory prov1s10n, or a statement USCIS or Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) policy. We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
11. ANALYSIS 
A Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner asserts once again that no fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts has been 
committed regarding the familial relationship between itself and the Beneficiary. The Petitioner 
contends that throughout the labor certification process it fully disclosed the fact that its chief 
executive officer has the same surname as the Beneficiary, citing the appearance of their names on 
the labor certification application. The Petitioner submits a copy of its articles of incorporation, 
which preceded the labor certification application and identified the Petitioner's initial agent and 
director as the same individual who signed the labor certification as the Petitioner's president. While 
the Petitioner is correct that it did not conceal the identity of its principal officer during the labor 
certification process, it did not acknowledge the familial relationship between that individual and the 
Beneficiary on the labor certification itself and did not acknowledge the familial relationship at all 
until the revocation proceedings began several years after the petition was filed and initially 
approved. The Petitioner's non-concealment of the fact that the Petitioner's principal officer and the 
Beneficiary have a common surname is not the same as acknowledging that they have a familial 
relationship, as the Petitioner should have done by answering "Yes" instead of "No" to the question 
in section C, box 9, of the labor certification. In sum, the current motion does not state any new 
facts with regard to the incorrect information provided on the labor certification regarding the 
familial relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary that led to the finding of fraud or 
willful misrepresentation of material facts by the Petitioner. 
As for the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage, the Petitioner refers to the previously 
submitted copies of federal income tax returns from the years 2005-2011 and reiterates its claim that 
the lack of signatures on some of these returns does not undermine their reliability. As we have 
stated in previous decisions, even if we grant that all of the tax returns submitted by the Petitioner 
are authentic, they do not establish the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from 
the priority date of November 2, 2005, onward because the returns show that in the years 2006-2008 
the Petitioner's net income and net current assets were minimal or non-existent. Furthermore, as the 
Petitioner did not hire the Beneficiary and begin to pay him until late in 2008, it cannot establish its 
ability to pay the proffered wage in 2006, 2007, and 2008 based on wages paid in those years. No 
new facts or documentation on the ability to pay issue have been submitted in support of the current 
motion. As such, the motion to reopen must be denied. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner once again requests that we reconsider our previous findings on the fraud and willful 
misrepresentation issue, repeating the argument made in earlier motions that the labor certification 
was prepared by an attorney no longer in its employ, and that the false representations made in that 
2 
Matter ofR-T-M-, Inc. 
document are the attorney's responsibility, not the Petitioner's. The Petitioner also refers to a 
previously submitted declaration by the Beneficiary about his contact with the Petitioner's prior 
attorney before the labor certification was prepared, and claims that it shows the Beneficiary had no 
foreknowledge that the attorney would commit fraud or willful misrepresentation of material facts 
on the labor certification. However, we addressed these claims in our prior decisions and the current 
motion does not establish, or even allege, that our previous decision on the issue of fraud and willful 
misrepresentation was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. Nor is the motion 
supported by any pertinent precedent or adopted decision, any statutory or regulatory provision, or 
any statement of USC IS or DHS policy. 
On the ability to pay issue, the Petitioner once again cites Matter of Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612, 
claiming that it has established its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date 
onward based on the totality of its circumstances over the years. We have already applied the 
Sonegawa criteria in analyzing the Petitioner's ability to pay in prior decisions, and the Petitioner 
has not shown that our previous decisions were based on an incorrect application of that case. Nor 
has the Petitioner shown that we incorrectly applied any other case law, statutory law, regulation, or 
USCIS or DHS policy in our previous decisions on the ability to pay issue. Therefore the motion to 
reconsider must be denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration of our prior decision, nor 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of R-T-M-, Inc., ID# 1580464 (AAO Mar. 19, 2019) 
3