dismissed EB-3 Case: Administrative Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17999712 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for An Alien Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 13, 2021 
The Petitioner, a janitorial business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an administrative assistant. It 
requests "other worker" classification for the Beneficiary under the third preference immigrant category. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(3)(A)(iii), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b )(3)(A)(iii) . 
This employment-based "EB-3" immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor for lawful 
permanent resident status a foreign national who is capable of performing unskilled labor that requires 
less than two years of training or experience and is not of a temporary or seasonal nature. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition on the ground that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary had the requisite experience to meet the terms of the labor certification 
and to qualify for the requested visa classification. The Petitioner submitted an appeal, which we 
dismissed on the same grounds. The Petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider , which we dismissed 
on the ground that it was not timely filed . 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider, in which the Petitioner 
asserts that its previous motion was timely filed and submits supporting documentation. Upon review 
of the previous motion, which includes a receipt stamp on the Form I-290B, we determine that the 
Petitioner's motion to reconsider was timely filed. Accordingly, we will withdraw our contrary 
finding and adjudicate the motion on the merits. 
In its brief accompanying the motion to reconsider the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision 
was erroneous in law and policy because it did not give proper weight to the new evidence submitted 
on appeal, in particular the Beneficiary's official Work and Social Security Card ( Carteira de Travalho 
e Previdencia Social, or CTPS) from the Brazilian government. According to the Petitioner , the CTPS 
clearly identifies the Beneficiary as the cardholder and records her four years of employment as an 
administrative assistant in Brazil, thereby establishing the Beneficiary's eligibility for the requested 
immigrant visa classification under the terms of the labor certification. 
It is the Beneficiary's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of 
the evidence. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
375 (AAO 2010) . For the reasons discussed herein, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. PROCUDURAL HISTORY 
The instant petition (Form I-140) was filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
on September 25, 2019, accompanied by a labor certification (ET A Form 9089) that was filed with 
the Department of Labor (DOL) on June 27, 2019, and certified by the DOL in August 2019. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(D) states that "[i]f the petition is for an unskilled (other) 
worker, it must be accompanied by evidence that the alien meets any educational, training and 
experience, and other requirements of the labor certification." All requirements must be met by the 
petition's priority date, which in this case is June 27, 2019. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N 
Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). As discussed in previous decisions, the only requirement 
of the labor certification in this case is 12 months of experience as an administrative assistant, and the 
only experience listed for the Beneficiary on the labor certification was an administrative assistant job 
with I I inl I Massachusetts, lasting approximately 18 months during 
the years 2015 and 2016. 
The Director denied the pet1t10n on the ground that the Petitioner did not resolve evidentiary 
discrepancies regarding the Beneficiary's alleged experience withe=} and therefore did not establish 
that the Beneficiary had at least 12 months of qualifying experience. 
On appeal the Petitioner submitted additional documentation regarding the Beneficiary's alleged 
experience in Massachusetts, but we concluded that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary 
was employed byc=J as a full-time administrative assistant for at least 12 months, as required to 
meet the experience requirement of the labor certification. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserted for the first time that the Beneficiary was also employed as an 
administrative assistant for more than four years in Brazil before coming to the United States. The 
Petitioner contended that this employment met the experience requirement of the labor certification 
even ifwe discounted the employment withe=] and claimed that this experience was not previously 
identified because it was thought the evidence of the Beneficiary's experience with0would suffice. 
As evidence of the alleged experience the Petitioner submitted a letter from the human resources 
manager of,__ ________________ ___, inl I Brazil, dated March 19, 
2020, stating that the Beneficiary was employed in the financial department as a full-time 
administrative assistant from June 2, 2008, to November 29, 2012. Also submitted was a partial copy 
of the Beneficiary's CTPS (select pages in Portuguese with ~nglish yanslations) including a contrato 
de trabalho ( contract of employment) on page 12 identifyin as the employer, the position as 
an administrative assistant, and the dates of employment as June 2, 2008 to November 29, 2012. In 
2 
addition, three identically worded letters were submitted from individuals who claimed to have been 
co-workers of the Beneficiary atl I 
As we pointed out in our appellate decision, the AAO need not accept evidence offered for the first 
time on appeal when the petitioner has had the opportunity to submit such evidence earlier in the 
proceeding. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). Though the Petitioner based its 
failure to disclose the job wit~ I earlier in this proceeding on the belief that it was unnecessary 
in view of the Beneficiary's more recent job with c=J we noted that section K of the labor 
certification specifically instructed the Petitioner to "list any other experience that qualifies the alien 
for the job opportunity [of administrative assistant]." We indicated that the failure to list the 
Beneficiary's alleged job withl I on the labor certification 1 lessened the credibility of the asserted 
work experience. See Matter of Leung, 16 I&N Dec. 2530 (BIA 1976). 
Even if we granted the Petitioner's request to consider the new job claim and supporting evidence, we 
indicated that it was insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary gained any qualifying experience 
witH I While the letter frortj t appeared to comport with the substantive requirements of 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l), 2 we discussed how the contents of the letter- in particular how the description 
of the job duties tracked so closely to the job duties of the subsequentc=J position, as described in 
the labor certification and the letter from that company in 2020 - raised questions about the 
authenticity of the employment verification. We indicated that the three letters from alleged co­
workers of the Beneficiary's atl I had little probative value since they were identically worded, 
thus indicating that they were not individually prepared, and did not comport with the requirement of 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l) that employment verification letters be written by the Be1yficiaryi' employer. 
not her co-workers. The only other evidence of the alleged employment with were select 
pages of the Beneficiary's CPTS including a contract of employment entry with on page 12 
which did not specifically identify the employee on that page as the Beneficiary. 3 
We concluded in our appellate decision that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed byl I as a full-time administrative assistant for at least 12 months, as required to meet 
the experience requirement of the labor certification. 
III. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
On motion the Petitioner's only reference to the Beneficiary's alleged employment with0 in 2015 
and 2016 is the so-called scrivener's error in the labor certification regarding the starting date, which 
the Petitioner contends was an immaterial error because the difference was only three months and the 
Beneficiary would have lgainel more than 12 months of qualifying experience in any event by the end 
of her employment with As we stated in our appellate decision a three-month difference in the 
starting date of the Beneficiary's employment withe=] would indeed be immaterial if the record 
1 The Petitioner also had the opportunity to submit evidence of the Beneficiary's alleged experience withl I in 
response to the NOID, but did not. 
2 The regulation provides that "[ e ]vidence relating to qualifying experience . . . shall be in the form of letters from current 
or former employer( s) . . . and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
duties performed by the alien." 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l) 
3 We note on motion that the cover of the CPTS does identify the Beneficiary as the card holder and appears to link her to 
the entries therein. 
3 
established that the Beneficiary was actually employed by that business as an administrative assistant 
through September 30, 2016. After reviewing the evidence, however, we concluded that the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary was so employed. The Petitioner has not identified any incorrect 
application of law or policy in that decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown cause for us to 
reconsider our determination that the record does not establish that the Beneficiary gained at least 12 
months of qualifying experience with D in 2015 and 2016. 
As for the Beneficiary's alleged experience withl I during the years 2008-2012, the Petitioner submits 
copies of additional pages from the Beneficiary's CPTS. Several pages appear to record salary and 
contributions of some sort during the years 2008-2012, but they are in Portuguese without English translations, 
and therefore do not compo1i with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).4 Since the substance of the 
Portuguese language entries is unclear, they have little probative value in this proceeding. We also have 
questions about the reliability of the CTPS entries (including the previously submitted pages with English 
translations) as evidence of the Beneficiary's employment history in Brazil, since the alleged employment with 
I I from June 2008 to November 2012 is the only job listed in the document, though the Beneficiary did 
not come to the United States until April 2015. The CTPS does not list any other employment for the 
Beneficiaiy between November 2012 and April 2015, and neither the Petitioner nor the Beneficiary has 
accounted for the Beneficiary's activity during that tilllc period. Most imp;rt,tly,
1 
the lctitioner has subnlittcd 
no contemporary documentation of the Beneficiary's alleged employment with in the years 2008-2012, 
such as official employment records and/or pay statements issued by during those years. It is 
incumbent upon a petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's evidence also reflects on the reliability of the 
petitioner's remaining evidence. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In view of the evidentiary deficiencies discussed above, the omission of the Beneficiary's alleged employment 
with I I from the labor ce1iification ( despite specific instruction on the form to list all qualifying 
experience), and the fact that the Beneficiary's alleged employment with I I was not asserted by the 
Petitioner before the appellate stage of this proceedinf, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiaiy gained any experience withl._ __ _. In its motion brief the Petitioner did not identify any 
incorrect application of law ~r policylin our appellate determination that the record did not establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed b as a full-time administrative assistant for at least 12 months, as required 
to meet the experience requirement of the labor ce1iification. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown cause 
for us to reconsider our decision on this issue. 
IV. ISSUE OF PETITIONER'S ADDRESS 
On the labor certification application filed with the DOL in June 2019, and on the I-140 petition fjkq 
with USCIS ii Septejber 2019, the Petitioner's address was identified as I I Street, SuiteU 
I I MA However, two subsequent notices from the AAO to the Petitioner that were 
mailed to that address-including our receipt notice of the Petitioner's appeal, dated January 18, 2021, 
and our Notice of Dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal, dated March 9, 2021 - were returned by the 
U.S. Postal Service as "unable to forward." We have consulted the corporation search website of The 
4 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) provides that "[a]ny document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, 
and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." 
4 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts which shows that the Petitioner changed its registered office address 
tol I Road, I I MA I I on May 22, 2019. https://corp.sec.state.ma.us/ 
CorpWeb/CorpSearch/Corp Search ViewPDF.aspx (last visited Sept. 10, 2021). This change of 
address preceded the filing of both the labor certification application and the I-140 petition, but was 
not reflected on either form. Thus, the address entered on both the labor certification and the petition, 
which was also identified on both forms as the primary worksite address of the proffered position, was 
evidently incorrect. 5 The Petitioner has provided no explanation for this error, and has yet to inform 
USCIS of its change of address. In any future proceedings the Petitioner must address this issue and 
confirm its correct address. 
V. CONCLUSION 
We withdraw our previous decision dismissing the motion to reconsider as untimely filed. However, 
the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration of our appellate decision. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5 According to GoogleMaps the two locations, both located in the Boston metropolitan area, are 11 miles apart. 
5