Accountant

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to state new material facts regarding the failure to update its address with USCIS. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. USCIS maintained that it is the sole responsibility of the petitioner to ensure the agency has the correct address on file, regardless of whether a case is pending or approved.

The petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary gained at least two years of experience performing the specific duties listed in the labor certification. Furthermore, the evidence did not demonstrate that the beneficiary held a foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in accounting. Conflicting educational evaluations and employment history discrepancies remained unresolved.

The Beneficiary failed to meet the minimum requirements of the labor certification, which required a bachelor's degree in commerce or accounting. The record lacked an official college record showing a degree was awarded, and the Petitioner's reliance on the H-1B '3-for-1' experience rule was deemed inapplicable to this immigrant petition. Additionally, the labor certification (Form 9089) specifically stated that an alternate combination of education and experience was unacceptable.

The motion to reopen was dismissed for not stating new facts supported by documentary evidence, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The motion to reconsider was dismissed because it did not establish that the prior decision misapplied law or USCIS policy, as per 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). USCIS affirmed that service of the NOIR to the last known address was compliant with regulations (8 C.F.R. § 103.8(a)(1) and § 103.8(b)) and rejected the Petitioner's claim of constitutional property rights in the I-140 petition, citing federal court precedents such as Musunuru v. Lynch. The beneficiary's portability claim was denied because the I-140 petition had already been revoked, consistent with Herrera v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. Finally, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. was found inapplicable as the Petitioner lacked a constitutionally protected due process interest in the petition, and USCIS's revocation procedures satisfy due process requirements, as established in Karpeeva v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.