All Cases

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 The beneficiary's portability claim was denied because the I-140 petition had already been revoked, consistent with Herrera v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr.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 appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate its ability to pay the proffered wage of $62,504 from the priority date of March 22, 2021. The Petitioner's 2021 tax returns showed insufficient net income ($8,976) and no reported net current assets. The personal assets of the owner were not considered, as a corporation is a distinct legal entity. Bank statements were deemed insufficient to prove sustained ability to pay, and the Petitioner did not provide adequate evidence of business growth or financial recovery to overcome the deficit.

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 appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner's net income and net current assets were insufficient to cover the proffered wage for the years 2021 and 2022. Additionally, the Petitioner did not provide a sufficient explanation of profit potential or how increased revenues would offset costs to meet the wage requirements under the totality of circumstances (Sonegawa) analysis.

The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary met the minimum requirements of 12 months of training and 12 months of experience specified in the labor certification. Regulatory requirements for employer letters were not met, and experience gained with the sponsoring employer cannot be used to qualify for the position under 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(3).

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.