dismissed EB-3 Case: Beauty Services

U.S. Department of .Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 03 040 52379 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, revoked approval of the preference visa petition. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) remanded the matter. The matter is now before the AAO pursuant to a 
second revocation and certification by the director. The decision of the director will be affmed. Approval of the 
instant visa petition will be revoked. 
The petitioner is a beauty salon. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a hair 
salon manager. As required by statute, a Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment Certification 
approved by the Department of Labor accompanies the petition. The director determined that the beneficiary 
had previously been found to have entered into a fraudulent marriage for the purpose of evading United 
Stated immigration laws and revoked approval of the petition pursuant to section 204(c) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1154(c). The AAO found that the director had failed to notify the 
petitioner of the adverse evidence upon which he based his decision and remanded the matter for compliance with 
that requirement. 
Section 204(c) of the Act states, 
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) no petition shall be approved if (1) the alien 
has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an immediate relative or 
preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United States or the spouse of an alien 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, by reason of a marriage determined by the 
Attorney General to have been entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws 
or (2) the Attorney General has determined that the alien has attempted or conspired to enter 
into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. 
The record contains a Form 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by a United States citizen as petitioner. 
The beneficiary of the instant petition was also the beneficiary of that Form 1-130 petition. In that Form 1-130 
the petitioner alleged that she and the beneficiary were married. That alleged relationship of the petitioner 
and the beneficiary as husband and wife was the basis of the petition in that matter. 
The record also contains a statement dated November 17, 2000 and signed by the beneficiary's alleged wife. 
The beneficiary's alleged wife stated (1) that she married the beneficiary for the sole purpose of allowing him 
to remain in the United States, (2) that she was offered $3,000 plus an unstated additional amount after the 
beneficiary obtained Legal Permanent Resident status, (3) that she had already received the $3,000, (4) that 
she did not live with and never had lived with the beneficiary, and (5) that she was withdrawing her petition 
for the beneficiary. 
Further still, the record contains a videocassette recording of the November 17, 2000 1-1 30 interview of the 
beneficiary and his ostensible wife. 
On May 5, 2005 the Director, Texas Service Center, revoked approval of the instant petition based on the 
evidence in the record that the beneficiary had previously entered into a sham marriage for the purpose of 
obtaining an immigration benefit. 
On appeal, counsel noted that the petitioner in the instant matter had not been informed of the adverse 
evidence prior to issuance of the decision revoking approval of the instant petition.' Counsel also alleged that 
the beneficiary and his ex-wife speak only Spanish, that an unqualified interpreter was assigned to translate 
for them, that they were asked to sign documents they did not understand, and that they felt pressure to sign 
them. Counsel also stated that despite a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act she had not been 
given a copy of the videotaped interview. 
The Chief, AAO, found that pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b)~ the director was obliged to issue a notice prior to 
revoking approval of the petition based on adverse evidence of which the petitioner might be unaware. 
Accordingly, the chief overturned the decision of revocation and remanded the matter to the service center. 
On November 13,2006 the Texas Service Center issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke in this matter. In that notice 
the director informed the petitioner that the service center intended to revoke approval of the instant petition 
pursuant to section 204(c) of the Act based on a determination that the beneficiary had entered into a fraudulent 
marriage. 
The director accorded the petitioner 30 days to respond to that adverse evidence. The director found that the 
petitioner did not respond. On December 18, 2006 the director revoked approval of the petition again and 
certified the matter to the AAO. 
In response to the notice of certification counsel indicated that she did respond to the notice of intent to revoke 
and resubmitted the documentation to the AAO. Counsel argued that the beneficiary's marriage was bonafide, 
that the evidence did not support a finding of fraud, and that neither she nor the beneficiary had received a 
viewable copy of the videocassette of the November 17, 2000 interview. On February 20, 2007 this ofice sent 
counsel a letter and a copy of the videocassette. The letter noted that the videotape shows that the beneficiary's 
ostensible wife or ex-wife speaks English fluently, that she understood the content of her signed statement, and 
that no undue duress was used to cause her to sign it. Counsel was accorded 30 days to respond to that adverse 
information. No response was received. 
The evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary entered into a marriage for the purpose of evading 
immigration laws, and that he sought to be accorded an immigration benefit based on that fraudulent 
marriage. Approval of the Form 1-140 petition was correctly revoked pursuant to section 204(c) of the Act. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
1 
 Counsel observed that the decision of May 5, 2005 incorrectly identified the action taken as denial of the 
petition, whereas the decision revoked previous approval of that petition. 
2 
 The October 20, 2006 decision of the AAO incorrectly identified the governing regulation as 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(b). 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision of December 18, 2006 is affirmed. Approval of the instant petition is 
revoked.