Jewelry Repairer

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to state new facts or provide new documentary evidence, merely resubmitting existing records. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not identify any specific error of law or policy in the prior appellate decision.

The Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying experience of four years in consumer marketing and sales in the fashion jewelry industry by the priority date of March 24, 2016. Business registration documents provided did not corroborate job duties or specific employment dates, and inconsistencies in the Beneficiary's work history remained unresolved.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not provide sufficient independent, objective evidence to corroborate the Beneficiary's claimed full-time work experience in Pakistan, which was necessary to meet the 24 months of required experience. The Beneficiary's prior U.S. visitor visa application, where he stated no previous employment, created an inconsistency that required more than just employer letters to resolve.

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).