MEMORANDUM & ORDER In a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), plaintiffs the Razi School (the “Razi School”) and Simin Nouritajer (“Nouritajer”) (together, “plaintiffs”) seek judicial review, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §701 et seq., of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (“USCIS”) revocation of Plaintiffs’ Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (“I-140″), and denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the revocation. (Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ECF No. 17, 1.) Defendants L. Francis Cissna, Director, USCIS, and USCIS (the “defendants” or “government”) move to dismiss the SAC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). (Mem. of Law in Support of Def.’s Mot. to Dis. Pl.’s Sec. Am. Compl. (“Def. Mem.”), ECF No. 28.) For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. BACKGROUND The following allegations from the complaint are taken as true for the purposes of a motion to dismiss.1 See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007); see also Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted) (discussing treatment of material factual allegations in complaint for purposes of Rule 12(b)(1) analysis), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 247 (2010). Plaintiff the Razi School was established in the Eastern District of New York in 1995 and provides education in an Islamic environment for from pre-Kindergarten through the 12th grade. (SAC 2.) Plaintiff Simin Nouritajer, a resident of the Eastern District of New York, is a native and citizen of Iran, and has taught at the Razi School since January 2002. Id. Ms. Nouritajer’s husband, Mehdi Faridzadeh, a nonparty to this action, formerly served in the Iranian Mission to the United Nations and was a visiting scholar at Columbia University. Id. On December 28, 2004, the Razi School filed an application for a labor certification with the Department of Labor seeking certification for Ms. Nouritajer as a teacher. (Id. 7; Dep’t of Labor (“DOL”) Approved Labor Cert., Exh. A (“Exh. A”), ECF No. 17.) The application specified Ms. Nouritajer’s qualifications for the teaching position including a bachelor’s degree in English and over 19 years of experience teaching middle school English. (Id.; SAC 2.) On January 18, 2007, the Department of Labor approved Ms. Nouritajer’s labor certification. (Id. at 10; Exh. A, ECF No. 17.) On May 7, 2007, the Razi School filed a Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, on behalf of Ms. Nouritajer, seeking to classify her as an Employment-Based Third Preference category (“EB-3″) professional. (Id.
5, 8; see 8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(3)(A)(ii).) USCIS submitted a request to the Razi School for additional information that the school lost, and Ms. Nouritajer never received. (SAC 8.) USCIS subsequently denied the petition for abandonment and reopened the case in March 2013. Id. In April 2013, USCIS sent the same request for additional information and received a timely reply. Id. On November 19, 20132, USCIS approved Ms. Nouritajer’s I-140. (USCIS Mot. on Admin. Appeals Reconsideration Decision, Exh. F (“Exh. F”), ECF No. 17 at 3.) On July 11, 2017, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (“NOIR”) the I-140, finding that the initial grant of Ms. Nouritajer’s I-140 had been in error. (SAC 9; USCIS Mot. on Admin. Appeals Decision, Exh. D (“Exh. D”), ECF No. 17 at 30.) The Razi School opposed the revocation. (Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of I-290B Notice of Appeal, Exh. C (“Exh. C”), ECF No 17.) On August 18, 2017, USCIS revoked the I-140 concluding that the previous grant had been in error, as the Razi School did not establish its ability to pay the proffered wage and Ms. Nouritajer did not establish sufficient qualifications for the offered position. (See ECF No. 17, Exh. D.) The Razi School appealed the revocation to the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (“USCIS AAO”), citing new evidence and, on August 1, 2018, USCIS rejected plaintiffs’ appeal, finding that the Razi School had failed to establish that: (1) Ms. Nouritajer had the necessary experience and qualifications listed in the approved labor certification, and (2) the Razi School had the ability to pay Ms. Nouritajer the proffered wage. (See ECF No. 17, Exhs. C, D.) First, the USCIS AAO found that Ms. Nouritajer’s experience while still in Iran, over 2.7 years, as a mathematics teacher in two Iranian middle schools, did not qualify her for the elementary school teacher job description put forward by the Razi School for children from kindergarten to fourth grade, instructing students in English, language arts, and Islamic literature. (ECF No. 17, Exh. D at 31.) The application for Ms. Nouritajer’s labor certification stated that her experience at the Iranian middle school was 2.7 years of teaching English. (ECF No. 17, Exh. A at 12-13.) Next, the USCIS AAO found that the Razi School had filed immigrant petitions, in addition to Ms. Nouritajer’s, that were pending, approved, or submitted after Ms. Nouritajer’s priority date. (Id. at 32.) The Razi School failed to withdraw two other petitions that had been approved before Ms. Nouritajer’s petition priority date of December 28, 2004, because the two employees with approved petitions no longer worked at the Razi School, and the school was no longer responsible to demonstrate an ability to pay the other approved employees. (ECF No. 17, Exh. F at 48.) Because the Razi School did not withdraw these two other petitions, though the Razi School had the requisite funds to pay Ms. Nouritajer’s wages, the USCIS AAO found that the Razi School, as a non-profit organization employing Ms. Nouritajer in a non-revenue generating position, did not have sufficient funds to pay the wages for all of the petitions filed for the beneficiaries supported by the Razi School until the beneficiaries obtain lawful permanent residence. (ECF No. 17, Exh. D at 34.) The Razi School filed a motion to reopen the AAO decision. (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen, Exh. E (“Exh. E”), ECF No. 17.) The USCIS AAO denied the Razi School’s motion on May 29, 2019. (See ECF No. 17, Exh. F.) The instant action followed. In addition, Plaintiffs also allege that from 2010 to 2015, Ms. Nouritajer, her husband and child were subjected to repeated surveillance and questioning from agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”). (SAC 11.) The FBI and its agents are not named as a party or parties to this action. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the FBI agents told them that their applications for permanent residence would be delayed or denied if they did not offer information about Iran’s relationship with the United States. Id. Plaintiffs further allege that Ms. Nouritajer’s husband and child were temporarily stopped from boarding a flight to Iran on February 27, 2010, and upon their return on March 10, 2010, Ms. Nouritajer’s husband was questioned for over five hours, and Ms. Nouritajer and her child were also separately held and questioned. Id. Plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Nouritajer’s husband, a nonparty to this action, was denied reentry into the United States in 2013 by United States Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) agents. Id. Plaintiffs seek an order (1) reversing the revocation of the I-140 and the denial of their motion to reopen, and (2) finding that the revocation of the I-140 and the denial of their motion to reopen was pretextual based on Plaintiffs’ religion and national origin. (Id. at 8 (Prayer for Relief
