dismissed EB-3 Case: Travel Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10048392 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for a Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 27, 2020 
The Petitioner, a travel agency, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a manager of travel and tours. It 
requests skilled 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. § 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 ten motions to 
reopen and reconsider, nine of which we have dismissed and the latest of which is currently before us. 
Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motions. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R . 
§ I 03.5(a)(2). 
The Petitioner reiterates previous assertions that no fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material 
fact was committed regarding the familial relationship between itself and the Beneficiary and 
references previously submitted documents. The Petitioner states no new facts, however, and submits 
no new evidence. The Petitioner also reiterates previous assertions that it has established its ability to 
pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward, and references its tax filings for the years 2005-
2011. In prior decisions we found that the Petitioner had not established its ability to pay the proffered 
wage in the years 2006-2008. No new facts have been stated for those years, however, and no new 
evidence has been submitted. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening the proceedings with regard to 
the finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact in the labor certification and the 
Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward. 
B. 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 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. Nor does the Petitioner identify any incorrect application oflaw or policy in our 
prior decisions with regard to the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the 
priority date onward. 1 The Petitioner once again urges us to consider the totality of its circumstances, 
in accordance with Matter ofSonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967), but we have already 
done so in prior decisions. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration of our previous decisions 
with regard to the finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact in the labor 
certification and the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date 
onward. 
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 dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 While the Petitioner asserts that for the years 2006 and 2007 we should consider its ratio of total current assets to total 
current liabilities ( dividing current assets by current liabilities), in accordance with advice provided at a teleconference of 
the Eastern Service Center (ESC) and the Association of Immigration lawyers of America (AILA) in 1994, the Petitioner 
does not explain how that calculation would establish its ability to pay the proffered wage in those years. Moreover, advice 
from an ESC/ AILA teleconference is not dispositive for us. USCIS is bound by the Act, agency regulations, precedent 
decisions of the agency, and published decisions of the federal court of appeals from whatever circuit that the action arose. 
See NL.R.B. v Ashkenazy Property Management Corp., 817 F.2d 74, 75 (9th Cir. 1987) (administrative agencies are not 
free to refuse to follow precedent in cases originating within the circuit); R.L. Inv. Ltd. Partners v. INS, 86 F.Supp. 2d 
1014, 1022 (D. Haw. 2000), aff'd, 273 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2001) (unpublished agency decisions and agency legal 
memoranda are not binding under the Administrative Procedure Act, even when they are published in private publications 
or widely circulated). 
2