dismissed EB-3 Case: Auto Repair

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13090924 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for an Alien Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : DEC . 17, 2020 
The Petitioner , an auto care and repair center , seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a mechanic. It 
request s classification for the Beneficiary as an "other worker" 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 petition was initially approved , but the Director of the Texas Service Center subsequently revoked 
the approval. The Director determined 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 other worker 
classification . The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered 
position is a bona fid e job offer open to U.S. workers. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Director misinterpreted the evidence in the record . The 
Petitioner claims that its documentation establishes that the Beneficiary has the requisite experience 
to meet the terms of the labor certification and qualify for other worker classification , and that the 
record establishes the bonafid es of the job offer for a mechanic that was open to U.S . workers . 
In visa petition proceedings it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review we will dismiss the appeal on the 
ground that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has the requisite experience to meet 
the terms of the labor certification and therefore does not qualify for the requested visa classification . 
Since meeting the requirements of the labor certification is a fundamental element of eligibility which 
the Petitioner has not satisfied , we will reserve the remaining issue of whether the proffered position 
of mechanic is a bona fide job offer open to U.S. workers. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process . First, an employer obtains an 
approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5). By approving the labor certification, the DOL certifies that there are 
insufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available for the offered position and 
that employing a foreign national in the position will not adversely affect the wages and working 
conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II) of the 
Act. Second, the employer files an immigrant visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, ifUSCIS approves the petition, 
the foreign national may 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. 
Section 205 of the Act 8 U.S.C. § 1155, provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security may "for 
good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition." By regulation this revocation authority 
is delegated to any USCIS officer who is authorized to approve an immigrant visa petition "when the 
necessity for the revocation comes to the attention of [USCIS]." 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Beneficiary's Qualifications 
The first issue on appeal is whether the Beneficiary has the requisite experience to qualify for the 
proffered position and the requested visa classification. The Petitioner requests classification of the 
Beneficiary as an "other worker." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(D) states that: 
If 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, 1 which in this case is August 10, 2015. 
See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
In this case section H of the labor certification (Job Opportunity Information) specifies the following 
with respect to the requirements for the job of mechanic: 
4. 
5. 
6. 
6-A. 
8. 
10. 
14. 
Education: Minimum level required: 
Is training required for the job? 
Is experience in the job offered required? 
How long? 
Is an alternate combination of education 
and experience acceptable? 
Is experience in an alternate occupation acceptable? 
Specific skills or other requirements: 
None 
No 
Yes 
12 months 
No 
No 
None 
Thus, the labor certification requires that the Beneficiary have at least 12 months of experience as a 
mechanic. According to sections J and K or the labor certification the Benefictary clyms he met this 
requirement by virtue of his employment as a mechanic by I ~ in Pakistan, from 
1 The priority date of an employment-based immigrant petition is the date the underlying labor certification is filed with 
the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( d). 
2 
January 2011 to March 2013. With its initial evidence the Petitioner submitted a letter dated 
December 18, 2014, froml I on the letterhead ofl l stating that the 
Beneficiary was employed as a full-time auto mechanic from January 15, 2011, to March 25, 2013, 
and that "[h ]is duties were to examine and inspect vehicles, diagnose problems, repair[] cars and 
compil[ e] repair estimates." 
As previously indicated, the petition was initially approved (on April 8, 2017). On February 19, 2020, 
however, the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) which alluded to the Beneficiary's 
immigrant interview overseas at which, according to the interviewer, the Beneficiary was unable to 
answer basic questions about the duties of an auto mechanic. The Director also referenced records 
available to users indicating that on an application for a Bl visa in June 2014 the Beneficiary 
declared that he was currently employed as a senior civil engineer, listed previous employ:ment as an 
engineer from February 2008 to February 2009, and indicated that he graduated from thel I 
University of Engineering with a civil engineering degree in August 2009. The Director indicated that 
the above information conflicted with the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary met the experience 
requirement of the labor certification to qualify for the proffered position of mechanic and the 
requested visa classification. 
In response to the NOIR the Petitioner submitted an affidavit from the Beneficiary who asserted that 
he worked as an auto mechanic withl I from 2011 to 2013 and claimed that the Director 
mischaracterized the substance of his immigrant interview. According to the Beneficiary he was not 
unable to answer basic questions about the duties of an auto mechanic, was asked lots of questions 
about gas and diesel engines, and answered the questions well. The Beneficiary suggested that the 
interpreter may not have been very familiar with the terminology of auto mechanics and therefore 
given the interviewer a false impression of the Beneficiary's knowledge. 
In his decision the Director indicated that the Petitioner's response to the NOIR did not resolve the 
conflicting evidence about the Beneficiary's alleged experience as an auto mechanic, and did not even 
address the information on his B 1/B2 visa application about his prior employment and education as 
an engineer. The Director cited Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988), which states that it is 
incumbent upon a petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence, and that attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice without 
competent evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter of Ho at 591-92. The decision goes 
on to state that doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's evidence also reflects on the reliability of 
the petitioner's remaining evidence. See id. Since the Petitioner did not resolve the evidentiary 
inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's experience, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary 
did not meet the experience requirement of the labor certification and thus did not qualify for the 
requested visa classification. 
On appeal the Petitioner reiterates its contention that the Beneficiary's overseas immigrant interview 
was misconstrued by users with regard to the Beneficiary's knowledge of auto mechanics. The 
Petitioner points out that the Beneficiary's alleged employment as a mechanic byl lin 
the years 2011-2013 does not overlap his time of alleged employment as an engineer in the years 2008-
2009, and suggests that users should not doubt the Beneficiary's claim to have worked as an auto 
mechanic after having worked as an engineer and earning a university degree in engineering. The 
Petitioner has not submitted any independent objective evidence, however, to overcome the doubts 
3 
raised by the asserted career progression from engineer to auto mechanic. No official documentation 
has been submitted to confirm that I I is in the auto repair business and that the 
Beneficiary was actually employed as a mechanic, such as business registration and tax filings by 
I I personnel records of I I pay statements to and tax filings by the 
Beneficiary, social security records of the Beneficiary in Pakistan, or any other independent objective 
evidence. Thus, the Petitioner has not resolved the inconsistencies in the record concerning the 
Beneficiary's employment history and has not established that the Beneficiary gained any qualifying 
experience as a mechanic withl I 
In accord with the foregoing analysis we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary gained at least 12 months of experience as a mechanic by the priority date of August 10, 
2015. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has the requisite experience to 
meet the terms of the labor certification and qualify for the requested visa classification. On this 
ground alone the appeal must be dismissed. 
B. Bona Fides of the Job Offer 
As previously indicated, we reserve the other issue on appeal of whether the proffered position of 
mechanic is a bona fide job offer open to U.S. workers. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets the experience requirement of the labor 
certification, without which he does not qualify for the requested classification as an "other worker." 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4