dismissed EB-3 Case: Beauty Services

MATTER OF N-D-N-A-S- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 6, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a beauty salon, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a salon manager. It requests 
classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference immigrant classification. 
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 immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a foreign 
national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that requires at least two years of 
training or experience. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center initially approved the petition, but subsequently 
revoked the approvaL In the revocation decision the Director found that the evidence of record did 
not establish that the Beneficiary had the two years of experience required by the labor certification 
to qualify for the job offered. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and requests that the petition be re­
approved. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer must 
obtain an approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
1 
See section 
212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). 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 similady employed.' See section 
212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II) of the Act. Second, the employer may file an immigrant visa petition with 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1 The date the labor certification is filed, in cases such as this one, is called the "priority date." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the petition ))ave been satisfied from the priority date 
onward. 
.
Matter of N-D-N-A-S- Inc 
§ 1154. Third, if US CIS 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. 
A petition for a skilled worker must be for a position that requires at least two years of training or 
experience. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2). Moreover, the beneficiary must have all of the education, 
training and experience specified on the labor certification as of the petition's priority date. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B); see also Matter of Wing 's Tea House , 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Act. 
Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, was accompanied by a certified 
ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification) with a 
priority date of February 24, 2015. Section H of the labor certification specified that 24 months of 
experience in the job offered was required to qualify for the position of salon manager, and that 
experience in an alternate occupation was not acceptable. Section K of the labor certification, which 
set forth the Beneficiary's work experience, listed two prior jobs for the Beneficiary - as a salon 
manager of two beauty salons in South Korea from June 2010 through July 2012. As 
evidence of the Beneficiary's employment with the two salons the Petitioner submitted "certificates 
of employment" from the respective businesses stating that the Beneficiary was employed as a 
manager by from June 1, 2010, to November 30, 2011, and by from 
December 1, 2011, to July 31,2012. 
The petition was originally approved in October 2015. On August 1, 2016, the Director issued a 
notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval. The NOIR advised the Petitioner that USCIS had 
contacted the owner of salon, who confirmed that the Beneficiary worked at the salon 
but, according to the owner, not as the manager. The NOIR also advised that the Beneficiary 's 
claimed employment with the salon contradicted the employment history provided by the 
Beneficiary in her application for an F-2 nonimmigrant visa on August 22, 2012. 
In response to the NOIR the Petitioner submitted an affidavit from the Beneficiary restating her 
claim to have worked as salon manager at in South Korea, from December 1, 
2011, to July 31 , 2012. According to the Beneficiary, she did not mention her work at · in 
her F -2 visa application because she did not believe it was relevant. The Petitioner also submitted 
affidavits from two South Korean nationals who stated, in virtually identical language, that they had 
been regular customers of salon since February 2010 and March 2012, respectively, and 
remembered that the Beneficiary was the salon manager from December 2011 to July 2012. 
On November 8, 2016, the Director revoked the approval of the petition. The Director found that the 
three affidavits above lacked credibility because the Beneficiary's affidavit was self-serving and the 
two affidavits from salon clients' are contradicted by the owner's statement that the Beneficiary's 
work at the salon was not in the role of manager. The Director concluded, therefore, that evidence 
2 
.
Matter of N-D-N-A-S- Inc 
of record did not establish that the Beneficiary met the minimum experience requirement of the labor 
certification to qualify for the position of salon manager. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits another statement from the Beneficiary reiterating 
her claim to have 
worked at in the capacity of a manager, notwithstanding the contradictory assertion of the 
salon's owner when visited by USCIS officials . The Beneficiary refers to the "certificates of 
employment" submitted with the petition as credible evidence of her job title with both 
and since the documents have official seals and were received from the owners. 
The other evidence submitted on appeal, which includes documentation from the Petitioner's co­
owner and a church official in is not relevant to the issue of whether the Beneficiary was 
employed as a salon manager by 
In reviewing the contradictory evidence before us, we do not find the "certificate of employment" 
from that was submitted with the petition to be more credible than the statement from the 
owner obtained directly by USCIS in South Korea. The owner of stated to USCIS that 
the Beneficiary, though she worked at was not the manager. While the "certificate of 
employment" states that the Beneficiary was employed by the salon as a manager from December I , 
2011, to July 31 , 2012, the Korean-language original does not include a signature of the individual 
identified as president, Accordingly, it is not clear that the "certificate of 
employment" was executed by the president of 
The same applies to the "certificate of employment" from which was prepared 
in the same form as that from While stating that the Beneficiary was employed by the 
salon as a manager from June 1, 2010, to November 30, 201.1, the Korean-language original does not 
include a signature of the individual identified as president, 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not satisfactorily addressed why the employment history given on the 
Beneficiary's F-2 visa application did not mention her claimed employment as a salon manager, 
which was raised by the Director in the NOIR. In her affidavit in response to the NOIR the 
Beneficiary attests that she did not mention her work for in that application because she 
though it was irrelevant But she did not provide any information about the employment history she 
actually provided on the F-2 visa application. 
It is incumbent upon a petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner has not 
done so in this case. 
3 
Matter of N-D-N-A-S- Inc 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary had at least two years of qualifying experience as 
a salon manager as of the priority date. Therefore, the Beneficiary does meet the minimum experience 
requirement of the labor certification to qualify for the job offered, and is not eligible for classification 
as a skilled worker. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-D-N-A-S- Inc, ID# 424875 (AAO June 6, 2017) 
4