dismissed EB-3 Case: Antique Carpet Repair

MATTER OF S-G- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 30, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an owner and operator of home furnishing stores, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as 
an "'antique carpet weav[ er] and repair[ er]." It requests his classification as a ski lied worker under 
the third-preference, immigrant category. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based, '"EB-r category allows a 
U.S. business to sponsor a foreign national with at least two years of training or experience for 
lawful permanent resident status. 
The Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Acting Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum 
experience required for the offered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence. It asserts that the Acting Director erred in 
discounting qualifying experience that the Beneficiary gained. but did not list on the accompanying 
labor certification originally submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION PROCESS 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First. an employer applies 
for labor certification from the DOL. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). DOL must determine whether the United States has able. willing. qualified. and 
available workers for an offered position, and whether employment of a foreign national would hurt the 
wages and working conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. !d. If DOL certifies a foreign 
national to permanently fill an offered position. an employer must next submit the certification with 
an immigrant visa petition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. If USCIS approves the petition, a foreign national may finally apply for 
an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible. adjustment of status in the United States. See section 245 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
.
Matter ofS-G- LLC 
II. THE REQUIRED EXPERIENCE 
A petitioner must establish a beneficiary's possession, by a petition's priority date, of all DOL­
certified job requirements of an offered position. Matter of' Wing's Tea House. 16 I&N Dec. 158, 
160 (Acting Reg'! Comm 'r 1977). 1 In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, USCIS must 
examine the job offer portion of an accompanying labor certification to determine a position's 
mmtmum requirements. USCIS may neither ignore a cetiification term. nor impose additional 
requirements. See. e.g .. Madany v. Smith. 696 F.2d 1008, 1015 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (holding that the 
"DOL bears the authority for setting the content of the labor certification'') (emphasis in original). 
Here, the labor certification states the minimum requirements of the oflered position as two years of 
training in antique carpet weaving and repair, and two years of experience in the job offered. Also. 
under "[s]pecific skills or other requirements,'' the certification states: ··Must know how to weave 
and repair by hand vintage and rare carpets." 
On the labor certification, the Beneficiary attested to his possession of sufficient amounts of 
qualifying employment experience, indicating more than five years of full-time employment 
experience as a weaver for a fabric business in the United States, from January 2010 until the 
petition's priority 
date in June 2015. The labor cetiitication does not list the Beneficiary's 
possession of any other qualifying experience. The Petitioner. however. submitted copies of letters 
from two purported former employers of the Beneficiary in Iran. and 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A) (requiring a petitioner to support a beneficiary's claimed. 
qualifying experience with letters from employers). The letters state that the Beneficiary worked six 
years for each employer, weaving and restoring antique carpets. The Petitioner did not submit a 
letter from the Beneficiary's U.S. employer listed on the certification. 
In a notice of intent to deny (NOlO) the petition the Acting Director noted the omission hom the 
labor certification of the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience with the Iranian businesses that 
provided experience letters and notified the Petitioner that the record did not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered positon. 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner submitted an affidavit from one of the 
Beneficiary's purported former employers in Iran. The affidavit indicates that in 1983 the 
Beneficiary began an apprenticeship with in repairing and restoring antique Persian 
carpets. The Petitioner also submitted a copy of a "certificate of completion," signed by the 
employer, as evidence of the Beneficiary's completion of the three-year training program. In 
addition, the affidavit from states that, upon completion of the apprenticeship. the 
Beneficiary repaired carpets for the employer on a full-time basis for an additional three years. The 
Petitioner asserts that the affidavit and completion certificate, in conjunction with the previously 
1 
This petition's priority date is June 2, 2015, the date the DOL received the accompanying labor certification 
application. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d) (explaining how to determine a petition's priority date). 
2 
.
Matter ofS-G- LLC 
submitted letters, demonstrate the Beneficiary's possessiOn of the requisite expenence for the 
offered position. We disagree. 
The omissions of the Beneficiary's purported former Iranian employers from the labor certification 
cast doubts on his claimed, qualifying experience with those businesses. The certification form 
required the listing of all jobs the Beneficiary held during the three years immediately preceding the 
certification's filing and "any other experience that qualifies the alien for the job opportunity for 
which the employer is seeking certification.'' ETA Form 9089. Application for Permanent 
Employment Certification, Part K. Both the Petitioner and the Beneficiary signed the application, 
declaring under penalty of perjury that its contents were true and accurate. Thus, the employment 
verification documents from Iran conf1ict with the Beneficiary's attestation that he gained qualifying 
experience for the offered position only in the United States. See Malter of' Ho. 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record by independent. objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
As the Petitioner asserts on appeal, the omission from the labor certification of the Beneficiary's 
claimed experience in Iran does not bar the Petitioner from establishing the Beneficiary's 
qualifications based on that experience. DOL's certification does not determine a foreign national's 
qualifications for an otTered position. Instead, as the Petitioner argues, USCIS has final say over 
whether a beneficiary meets the certified requirements of an offered position. See. e.g .. Tongatapu 
Woodcraft Haw.. Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that the 
immigration service "may make a de novo determination of whether the alien is in fact qualified to 
fill the certified job offer''). But the Petitioner must explain the absence of the Iranian employers 
from the labor certification and establish the Beneficiary's claimed experience by independent, 
objective evidence. See Matter (~f'Leung, 16 I&N Dec. 12, 14-15 (BIA 1976) (noting. in dicta. that 
omission of a beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience from a labor certification lessens the 
claim's credibility). 
Here, the submitted letters and affidavit are not sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary has the 
required experience. Although both letters from and claim that the 
Beneficiary worked for the employers for six years. neither letter provides dates of employment. 
Moreover, the letter from states that the Beneficiary was employed for six years. while 
the affidavit he later submitted divided that time into three years of training and three years of 
employment. Also, the letters both state that a ''carpet company named has been extremely 
happy" with the Beneficiary's work. These statements suggest that the Beneficiary worked for 
rather than the employers who issued the letters. The letters are also virtually identicaL 
suggesting that the purported employers did not draft the documents based on personal knowledge of 
the Beneficiary's experience. 
The Petitioner has not explained the omissions of the Beneficiary's claimed former employers from 
the labor certification, the lack of employment dates, the uniformity of the employers' letters, or 
their references to another company. The Petitioner also has not submitted sutlicient independent. 
objective evidence of the Beneficiary's claimed experience in Iran, such as business. tax, or 
.
Matter of S-G- LLC 
government records. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Therefore, we find that the record does 
not support the Beneficiary's alleged experience in Iran. 
In addition, the Beneficiary may not rely on his claimed experience in the United States to qualify 
for the position. First, as noted above, no employment experience letter has been submitted to 
corroborate this claimed employment. Second, contrary to the Beneficiary" s attestation on the labor 
certification, evidence of record suggests that he was not working in the United States from January 
2010 until June 2015. Both the certification, tiled on June 2, 2015, and the Form I-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Worker, tiled on September 12, 2016, state the Beneficiary's residence in Iran. 
Also, an Iranian government-issued training certificate states the Beneficiary's passage of a 
vocational skills evaluation on October 12, 2011. These materials suggest that the Beneficiary lived 
in Iran from 2011 to 2016, casting doubt on his claimed qualifying experience in the United States 
for most of that period. As such, the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary gained the 
claimed experience in the United States. 
The record therefore does not establish the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum experience 
required for the offered position. 
III. THE REQUIRED TRAINING 
Although not addressed by the Acting Director in the denial, the record on appeal also does not 
establish the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum training required for the offered position. As 
previously indicated, the labor certification states the minimum training requirement of the offered 
position as two years in antique carpet weaving and repair. In the NOlO. the Acting Director 
acknowledged the copy of an Iranian government certificate indicating the Beneficiary's passage of 
500 hours of training in weaving but noted that the Petitioner had not established that 500 hours of 
training would satisfy the offered position's two-year training requirement. In response to the 
NOlO, the Petitioner submitted an affidavit and training certificate from of 
indicating the Beneficiary's completion of a three-year apprenticeship in antique carpet 
weaving and repair. 
On appeal, however, the Petitioner submits another copy of the training certificate. This certificate. 
dated April 13, 2017, states its original issuance in 1984. The prior copy, dated Apri I 18, 201 7. 
states the certificate's original issuance in 1987. The certificate copy submitted on appeal conflicts 
with the former employer's statement that the Beneficiary began the apprenticeship in 1983. If the 
former employer originally issued the certificate in 1984, the record docs not explain how the 
Beneficiary completed a three-year training program in one year. The record on appeal therefore 
does not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying training for the offered position. See Maller ol flo. 
19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record by independent. 
objective evidence). 
4 
Matter ofS-G- LLC 
IV. ABILITY TO PAY THE PROFFERED WAGE 
The record on appeal also does not establish the Petitioner"s ability to pay the proffered wage. A 
petitioner must demonstrate its continuing ability to pay a prottered wage. from a petition's priority date 
until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Evidence of ability to 
pay must include copies of annual reports. federal income tax retums, or audited financial statements. 
!d. 
Here, the labor certification states the proffered wage of the offered position as $32J23 a year. As 
previously noted, the petition·s priority date is June 2, 2015. The Petitioner submitted copies of its 
federal income tax returns for 2014. The record, however. lacks required evidence of the Petitioner's 
ability to pay the proffered wage in 2015, the year of the petition·s priority date. or thereafter. 
Therefore, the record does not demonstrate the Petitioner·s ability to pay the proffered wage. 
Also, USCIS records indicate that, after this petition's priority date. the Petitioner 1iled another petition 
for a different beneficiary. The Petitioner must demonstrate its ability to pay the proffered wage of each 
petition it files until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). The 
Petitioner must therefore demonstrate its ability to pay the combined proffered wages of this and its 
other petition until the other beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. See Patel v. Johnson. 2 F. 
Supp. 3d 108, 124 (D. Mass. 2014) (affirming our revocation of a petition· s approval where. as of the 
filing's grant, the petitioner did not demonstrate its ability to pay the combined proffered wages of 
multiple pending or approved petitions). 1n any future filings in this matter. the Petitioner must provide 
the proffered wage and priority date of its other pending petition. The Petitioner should also provide 
evidence of any wages it paid the other beneficiary and indicate whether the other beneficiary obtained 
lawful permanent status, or whether the other petition was withdrawn, denied, or revoked. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has the experience required for the offered 
position. The Petitioner has also not established that the Beneficiary has the requisite training or that 
it has the ability to pay the proffered wage. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-G- LLC, ID# 784876 (AAO Nov. 30, 20 17)