Construction Manager

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider were untimely, filed over a year after the revocation. Substantively, the Petitioner failed to resolve discrepancies between tax returns and state wage records to prove ability to pay. Furthermore, the Beneficiary did not establish the required two years of full-time experience in the job offered, and evidence suggested willful misrepresentation of her employment history.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner's net income (-$2,517 and $2,947) and net current assets ($2,332 and $5,279) were significantly below the proffered wage. The totality of circumstances under Matter of Sonegawa did not support a favorable finding. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide reliable evidence of the Beneficiary's required two years of full-time experience.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to present new facts or evidence demonstrating that the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) erred in its prior decision. The new version of the DOL ETA-9089 (2023) was deemed irrelevant as eligibility is assessed at the time of filing (July 2022), and the original certification explicitly disallowed alternate occupations. The Petitioner's resubmitted letter, which acknowledged the intern position was not substantially comparable, did not constitute new evidence as it was already submitted and considered.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner could not prove the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date of December 12, 2022. The Petitioner's 2022 net income (-$96,398) and net current assets (-$37,766) were insufficient to cover the $41,802 difference between the wages paid and the proffered wage.