Skilled Worker

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Additionally, the Petitioner did not provide new facts, supported by evidence, that would warrant reopening the proceeding. USCIS maintained that proper notice was given by mail to the address of record and that the petitioner is solely responsible for updating their mailing address.

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 The beneficiary's portability claim was denied because the I-140 petition had already been revoked, consistent with Herrera v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr.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.

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 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.