dismissed EB-3 Case: Agriculture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16764728 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 21, 2021 
The Petitioner, a grain and livestock farm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a farmworker under the 
third-preference, immigrant category as a skilled worker. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). 
The Director denied the petition and dismissed the Petitioner's following motion to reopen. We 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and its four later motions to reopen. Most recently, we found that 
the farm did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's educational qualifications for the offered position or 
the job's need for a skilled worker. See In Re: 11812622, (AAO Oct. 23, 2020). 
We return to the matter on the Petitioner's motion to reopen. The farm bears the burden of establishing 
eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of evidence. See section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1361 (discussing the burden of proof); see also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 
(AAO 2010) ( discussing the standard of proof). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion . 
I. MOTION CRITERIA 
A motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
We may grant a motion that meets these requirements and establishes eligibility for the requested 
benefit. 
II. THE REQUIRED EDUCATION 
The Petitioner submits a copy of a letter indicating that, in October 2020, a South African agency 
received the Beneficiary's application for a replacement high school equivalency certificate. 
Under the terms of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) certification accompanying the petition, the 
offered position of farmworker requires a U.S. high school education or its foreign equivalent. See 
Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977) (requiring a petitioner 
to demonstrate a beneficiary's possession of all DOL-certifiedjob requirements by a petition's priority 
date). The letter indicates that the Beneficiary has requested a certificate proving his possession of the 
equivalent of a high school education in South Africa. But the letter does not demonstrate that he has the 
equivalent South African education or that, as the offered position requires, the South African equivalency 
equates to a U.S. high school education. 
Also, as our prior decision indicates, the Petitioner submitted a letter indicating that the Beneficiary bases 
his possession of the claimed South African high school equivalency on employment, rather than 
education. In part H.9 of the labor certification application, the Petitioner indicated its acceptance of a 
"foreign educational equivalent" of U.S. high school. ( emphasis added). The labor certification does not 
state the farm's acceptance of a foreign equivalency based on employment or a combination of education 
and employment. See, e.g., Madany v. Smith, 969 F.2d 1008, 1015 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (requiring the 
immigration service to determine the minimum requirements of an offered position based on the plain 
language of an accompanying labor certification). Thus, even if the Beneficiary has a South African high 
school equivalency, it might not demonstrate his educational qualifications for the offered position. 
The motion does not establish the Beneficiary's educational qualifications forthe offered position. We 
will therefore dismiss that portion of the filing. 
III. THE REQUESTED IMMIGRANT VISA CLASSIFICATION 
The Petitioner asserts that DOL approved the labor certification in the requested skilled worker 
category. Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, however,DOL does not determine whether an offered 
position qualifies for a requested immigrant visa category. Congress limited DOL' s certifications to 
whether: (1) there are sufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, and available for an offered 
position; and (2) the employment of a noncitizen in the position would harm wages and working 
conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. Section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(a)(5). 
Rather, Congress authorized the immigration service to determine "that the alien in behalf of whom the 
petition is made ... is eligible for preference under subsection (a) or (b) of section 203." Section204(b) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). 
A labor certification accompanying a skilled-worker petition must demonstrate that the offered position 
requires at least two years of training or experience. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B). The Petitioner's labor 
certification states that the offered position requires no training and only six months of experience. The 
labor certification therefore does not support the requested immigrant visa classification. 
For these additional reasons, we will dismiss the remaining portion of the motion. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion neither establishes the Beneficiary's educational qualifications for the offered 
position nor the job's need for a skilled worker. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2