dismissed EB-2 Case: Economics

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Department of HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
Date: OCT 0 6 2011 Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
Degreeor anAlien of ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law was inappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyou wishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.The
specific requirementsfor filing such a requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be
submittedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a fee of $630. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat anymotionmustbe filed
within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thank ou
P y Rhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector, Texas
ServiceCenter,andis now beforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal.Theappeal
will bedismissed.
Thepetitionerstateson FormI-140thatit is arealestateinvestmentandmanagementfirm It seeksto
classifythe beneficiaryas an advanceddegreeprofessionalpursuantto section203(b)(2)of the
ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2).Thepetitionerseeksto employthe
beneficiarypermanentlyin theUnitedStatesasaneconomist.Thepetitionwassubmittedwithoutany
of thesupportingdocumentsrequiredpursuantto 8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)to showthatthebeneficiary
possessedthe educationand experiencerequiredby the certifiedlabor certification. The director
determinedthatthepetitionerhadnot submittedtherequisiteinitial evidenceanddeniedthepetition
pursuantto 8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1).
On appeal,counselrequestsoralargumenton accountof theinabilityto adequatelypresentall of the
issuesandreasonsfor theappealin writtenform. The regulationsprovidethat the requestingparty
mustexplainin writing why oral argumentis necessary.Furthermore,CitizenshipandImmigration
Services(USCIS)hasthe soleauthorityto grantor denya requestfor oral argumentandwill grant
argumentonly in casesinvolvinguniquefactorsor issuesof law thatcannotbeadequatelyaddressed
in writing. See8 C.F.R.103.3(b).In this instance,counselidentifiedno uniquefactorsor issuesof
law to beresolved.Moreover,thewrittenrecordof proceedingfully representsthefactsandissues
in this matter. Consequently,therequestfor oral argumentis denied.
Onappeal,counselassertsthatthestatementsmadeonthelaborcertification(ETA Form 8989),aswell
asacopyof thebeneficiary'sresumeandaletterof supportfromthepetitioner,whichweresubmitted
with theFormI-140,ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerweresufficientto constituteevidenceof the
beneficiary'seducationalcredentialsandtherequisite60monthsof experience.Counselcontendsthat
thedirectorshouldhaveprovidedan opportunityfor thepetitionerto submitadditionalevidenceby
issuinga Requestfor Evidence. Counselsubmitsdocumentationrelevantto thesequalificationson
appeal.
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1)providesthatall requiredapplicationor petition formsmustbe
properlycompletedandfiled with anyinitial evidencerequiredby applicableregulationsand/orthe
form'sinstructions.Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(8)(ii)providesthatif all therequiredinitial
evidenceis not submitted,U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)maydenythepetition
On page3 of the 2005federalcorporatetax returncontainedin the record,thepetitionerdescribes
its businessactivity as"retail" andits productor serviceas"gasoline." Doubtcaston anyaspectof
thepetitioner'sproof may,of course,leadto a reevaluationof thereliability andsufficiencyof the
remainingevidenceoffered in supportof the visa petition. It is incumbenton the petitionerto
resolveanyinconsistenciesin therecordby independentobjectiveevidence,andattemptsto explain
or reconcilesuchinconsistencies,absentcompetentobjectiveevidencepointingto wherethetruth,
in fact,lies,will notsuffice.SeeMatterofHo,19I&N Dec.582,591-592(BIA 1988).
Page3
for lack of initial evidence. The commentaryto this rule, Removalof StandardizedRequestfor
EvidenceProcessingTimeframe,72Fed.Reg.19100,19102(April 17,2007),indicatesthattherule
providesfor thediscretionto deny"skeletal"petitionsthatarefiled "with little morethana signature
andtheproperfee" assuch"clearlydeficient"petitionswill not be "permitted." Theregulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A)providesin relevantpartthattheinitial evidenceaccompanyingthepetition
requiredto showthat an alien is a professionalholdingan advanceddegreeis an official academic
recordshowingthatthe alienhasa U.S.advanceddegreeor a foreignequivalentdegree.Here,the
petitionerhasofferedthe beneficiary'sofficial academicevidencefor the first time on appeal. As
USCISclearlyexpressedthat skeletalpetitionsshouldnot be permitted,the directordid not err in
denyingthe petition pursuantto 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(8)(ii). We upholdthe director'sdecisionas
consistentwith theintentexpressedat72 Fed.Reg.at 19102.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.