Wigmaker

The initial appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualifying experience for the offered job. The subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider filed by the Petitioner's son were dismissed due to lack of standing. The Beneficiary's current motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because they exceeded the scope of the AAO's review, as they did not address the factual or legal correctness of the latest decision (which focused on the Petitioner's son's lack of standing).

The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner did not provide the required list of all petitions filed during the relevant period, preventing a determination of the total combined proffered wages. The motion to reopen failed to state new facts, and the motion to reconsider did not demonstrate a misapplication of law or policy regarding the ability to pay.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because it did not state new facts, providing only tax returns and articles already present in the record. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because it failed to address the grounds of the prior decision and instead re-argued merits regarding the ability to pay and the materiality of the concealed sibling relationship.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because it failed to state new facts and only contained previously submitted materials. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because it did not demonstrate a misapplication of law or policy in the prior decision. The Petitioner failed to meet EB-3 requirements regarding the ability to pay and the beneficiary's qualifications.