Quality Manager-Software

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not prove the labor certification remained valid for the materially changed job opportunity. The transition from a technical role to a senior director role involved different duties and a significantly higher salary than what was advertised during the labor market test. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing the offered position was the same or similar to the certified one.

The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner misapplied nonimmigrant regulations (8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)) to an immigrant petition. Under EB-3 professional criteria, a candidate must possess an actual U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign educational equivalent, and experience alone cannot substitute for this requirement. Furthermore, the labor certification specifically required a 'foreign educational equivalent,' which the Beneficiary's experience-based evaluation did not satisfy.

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 motion was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to provide legal documentation, such as a merger or purchase agreement, to establish a successor-in-interest relationship. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not address the underlying grounds of denial regarding the beneficiary's qualifications and the willful misrepresentation of material facts.