dismissed EB-3 Case: Bookkeeping

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23069817 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 30, 2022 
The Petitioner operates a gas station and seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a bookkeeper. 
The company requests her classification in the third-preference, immigrant visa 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). 
After first granting the filing, the Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the petition's approval. 
The Director concluded that: 
• the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualifying employment experience for the 
offered position; and 
• the accompanying certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) misrepresents the 
Beneficiary's experience . 
On appeal , the Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of evidence . See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon de 
nova review, we agree that the company has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's qualifying experience 
for the offered position and that evidence supports her willful misrepresentation of her experience on 
the labor certification . We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Immigration as a skilled worker generally follows a three-step process. First, a prospective employer 
must obtain DOL certification that: there are insufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, and 
available for an offered position; and employment of a noncitizen in the position will not harm wages and 
working conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. See section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 182(a)(5). 
Second , an employer must submit an approved labor certification with an immigrant visa petition to 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204(a)(l)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. 
§ l 154(a)(l)(F) . Among other things, USCIS determines whether a noncitizen beneficiary meets the 
requirements of a DOL-certified position and a requested immigrant visa category. Section 204(b) of 
the Act. 
Finally, if USCIS approves a petition, a beneficiary 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. 
At any time before a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent resident status, however, USCIS may 
revoke a petition's approval for "good and sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155. 
If supported by a record, a petition's erroneous approval justifies its revocation. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
USCIS properly issues a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) a petition's approval if the unexplained 
and unrebutted record at the time of the NOIR's issuance would have warranted the petition's denial. 
Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 451 (BIA 1987). If a petitioner does not submit a NOIR response 
or the response does not overcome the stated revocation grounds, USCIS properly revokes a petition's 
approval. Id. at 452. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Beneficiary's Experience 
A petitioner must demonstrate a beneficiary's possession of all DOL-certified job requirements of an 
offered position by a petition's priority date. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 
(Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). This petition's priority date is October 13, 2017, the date DOL accepted 
the Petitioner's labor certification application for processing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d) (explaining how 
to determine a petition's priority date). 
In assessing a beneficiary's qualifications, USCIS must examine the job-offer portion of an 
accompanying labor certification to determine the minimum requirements of an offered position. 
USCIS may neither disregard a certification term nor impose unstated requirements. See, e.g., Madany 
v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1015 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("DOL bears the burden of setting the content of the 
labor certification") ( emphasis in original). 
The Petitioner's labor certification states the minimum requirements of the offered position of 
bookkeeper as 24 months' ( or two years') experience "in the job offered." The position's duties 
include: developing a system to account for financial transactions; defining bookkeeping policies and 
procedures; balancing the general ledger and reconciling entries; and maintaining historical records 
and accounts. The labor certification states that the position requires neither education nor training. 
On the labor certification, the Beneficiary attested that, by the petition's priority date, she gained more 
than three years of qualifying experience in South Korea. She stated that a medical clinic employed 
her as a bookkeeper from October 2003 to January 2007. She did not list any other qualifying 
experience on the labor certification. 
2 
Consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A), the Petitioner submitted a letter from the clinic operator 
as proof of the Beneficiary's experience. The letter states the clinic's employment of her as a 
bookkeeper during the period listed on the labor certification and describes her former job duties. 
The Director's NOIR, however, notes inconsistent evidence regarding the Beneficiary's former job 
title and duties. Her 2016 application for a U.S. nonimmigrant visa states the clinic's employment of 
her not as a bookkeeper, but rather as a "nurse's aid" who provided "nursing service." The title and 
job duties on the visa application conflict with the experience requirements on the labor certification. 
The discrepancies cast doubt on the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience for the offered 
position. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies 
of record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). Because of the 
inconsistencies, the evidence at the time of the NOIR's issuance would have warranted the petition's 
denial. See Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. at 451. The Director therefore properly issued the NOIR. 
Id. 
In the Petitioner's NOIR response, the Beneficiary admitted working at the clinic as a nurse's aid. But 
she said she also performed bookkeeping duties because the clinic otherwise lacked a bookkeeper. 
She said that, when her spouse applied for a visa to work at the U.S. subsidiary of his South Korean 
employer, he completed her application for a dependent visa, listing her occupation as a nurse's aid. 
The Beneficiary said her spouse mistakenly assumed the clinic's employment of her solely as a nurse's 
aid. She asserted that, after the petition's approval, U.S. consular officials in South Korea twice 
telephoned the clinic's operator, who purportedly confirmed her work as both a nurse's aid and 
bookkeeper. The Petitioner also submitted an affidavit from the clinic's operator, stating the 
Beneficiary's dual employment as a nurse's aid and bookkeeper, spending 35% of her time (or 14 out 
of 40 hours a week) on bookkeeping duties. 1 
In an application for adjustment of status, the Beneficiary submitted copies of South Korean pension 
and tax records demonstrating the clinic's employment of her from October 2003 to January 2007. 
But we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's required 
experience as a bookkeeper. While the Beneficiary claims that her spouse mistakenly omitted her 
bookkeeping title and duties from the visa application, the Petitioner did not submit a statement from 
the spouse confirming her claim or objective evidence of her performance of bookkeeping tasks at the 
clinic, such as contemporaneous business records. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92 (requiring 
a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence). Similarly, the 
Beneficiary claims that the clinic twice confirmed her dual duties as a nurse's aid and bookkeeper to 
U.S. consular authorities. But neither the letter nor the affidavit from the clinic's operator mention 
the purported consular responses. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (requiring USCIS to 
"examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence"). 
Also, the clinic's affidavit, which states that the Beneficiary spent only 35% of her foll-time work on 
bookkeeping duties, demonstrates that her qualifying experience would be part-time in nature. For 
1 The clinic's affidavit also states that the Beneficiary spent another 35% of her time "provid[ing] administrative and 
clerical support such as record keeping and budgeting to various departments on an as-needed basis." The Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that any of the Applicant's additional support duties involved bookkeeping. We therefore separate the 
additional support tasks from the Applicant's bookkeeping duties. 
3 
labor certification purposes, part-time experience equates to less than full-time experience, and, unless 
otherwise specified, labor certifications require full-time experience. Matter of I Grand Express, 
2014-PER-00783, *4 (BALCA Jan. 26, 2018). In 1 Grand Express, the Board of Alien Labor 
Certification Appeals (BALCA) found that a noncitizen's 29.5 months of part-time employment 
equated to only 18.43 7 5 months offull-time employment, as his part-time, 25-hour work week equaled 
62.5% (25 divided by 40) of a full-time, 40-hour work week. Id. 
After the employer in 1 Grand Express clarified its acceptance of 24 months of part-time experience, 
BALCA reversed the labor certification denial. Id. But, unlike in 1 Grand Express, the Petitioner's 
labor certification indicates the Beneficiary's possession of full-time, "40"-hour-a-week qualifying 
experience, and the company has not indicated its acceptance of 24 months of part-time experience. 
We therefore assume the Petitioner's offered position requires 24 months of full-time experience. 
Thus, even if properly evidenced, the Beneficiary's part-time, 14-hour-a-week experience would 
equate to only 35% (14 divided by 40) of full-time experience. Her 39 months of part-time experience 
therefore would equal only 13.65 months of full-time experience (39 x 0.35), less than the required 
amount of 24. 
Further, contrary to the labor certification's specifications, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the 
Beneficiary's experience "in the job offered." Experience in the job offered means experience 
performing the duties of an offered position, as listed on a labor certification. See, e.g., Matter of 
Symbioun Techs., Inc., 2010-PER-01422, *4 (BALCA Oct. 24, 2011). The labor certification lists the 
duties of the Petitioner's offered position as: 
Develop system to account for financial transactions by establishing a chart of 
accounts; defining bookkeeping policies and procedures. Balance general ledger by 
preparing a trial balance; reconciling entries. Maintain historical records by filing 
documents. Maintain accounts by verifying, allocating, and posting transactions. 
The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's performance of all the listed duties 
at the clinic. The clinic's letter and affidavit state that she "completed regular accounts receivable and 
accounts payable duties, such as preparing financial reports, researching and reconciling 
discrepancies, and processing transactions." The evidence does not establish the Beneficiary's 
performance of various duties of the offered position, including: "develop[ing a] system to account 
for financial transactions by establishing a chart of accounts;" "defining bookkeeping policies and 
procedures;" "balanc[ing] general ledger by preparing a trial balance;" and "maintain[ing] historical 
records by filing documents." 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's possession of the 
minimum experience required for the offered position. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
B. Misrepresentation 
USCIS approves a filing, in part, if "the facts stated in the petition are true." Section 204(b) of the 
Act. A petition includes any supporting evidence - including a labor certification. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Thus, USCIS cannot approve a petition if the facts stated on an accompanying labor 
certification are untrue. 
4 
Misrepresentations are willful if they are deliberate and voluntary. Witter v. INS, 113 F.3d 549, 554 
(5th Cir. 1997). They are material if they have a natural tendency to influence an agency's decisions. 
Id. A noncitizen's signature on an immigration application establishes a strong presumption that they 
knew the filing's contents and assented to them. Matter of Valdez, 27 I&N Dec. 496,499 (BIA 2018). 
As discussed above, the Director found that the Petitioner's labor certification misrepresents the 
Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience. The labor certification states the medical clinic's full-
time employment of the Beneficiary as a bookkeeper from October 2003 to January 2007. The 
Beneficiary and the clinic's operator, however, now contend that, during that period, she performed 
the duties of both a bookkeeper and a nurse's aid. 
The record is unclear whether the Director attributed misrepresentation on the labor certification to 
the Petitioner, the Beneficiary, or both. In various parts, the NOIR and the revocation decision indicate 
misstatements of the experience by the Petitioner and the Beneficiary. We will therefore separately 
consider the parties' responsibility for the misrepresentation. 
1. The Petitioner 
The record lacks sufficient evidence of the Petitioner's misrepresentation of the Beneficiary's 
experience. By signing the labor certification, the Petitioner's president declared under penalty of 
perjury that he read and reviewed the application and that its information is true and correct "to the 
best of my knowledge." But the record lacks evidence that the president knew of the Beneficiary's 
dual duties at the clinic. Insufficient evidence therefore supports the Petitioner's misrepresentation of 
the Beneficiary's experience. See Tongatapu Woodcraft Haw., Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1308-
09 (9th Cir. 1984) (requiring "some evidence" to support a petition's revocation). 
2. The Beneficiary 
Substantial evidence supports the Beneficiary's misrepresentation of her experience on the labor 
certification. The Beneficiary claims that her spouse inadvertently omitted her bookkeeping duties at 
the clinic from her nonimmigrant visa application. But, even if supported by sufficient evidence, her 
claim would not explain the omission of her nursing duties at the clinic from the labor certification 
application. The Beneficiary signed the labor certification application, attesting that the section listing 
her experience was true and correct. She does not claim that her spouse or anyone else completed the 
labor application for her. Thus, we must presume that she knew the application's contents and their 
misrepresentation of the nature of her experience. See Matter of Valdez, 27 I&N Dec. at 499. 
Also, as discussed above, the nature of the Beneficiary's experience is material to her eligibility for 
the offered position. Because only 35% of her duties at the clinic involved bookkeeping, her qualifying 
experience for the offered position would be part-time in nature, insufficient to demonstrate the 
requisite amount of foll-time experience. See 1 Grand Express, supra, at *4 (stating that part-time 
experience on a labor certification does not equate to foll-time experience). Thus, substantial evidence 
supports the Beneficiary's willful misrepresentation of her qualifying experience on the labor 
5 
certification. We therefore also affirm the petition's denial based on the misrepresentation of the 
Beneficiary's experience. See section 204(b) of the Act. 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered position, and 
substantial evidence supports her willful misrepresentation of her experience on the labor certification. 
We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 Our misrepresentation finding could also lead to an inadmissibility determination against the Beneficiary. A noncitizen's 
willful misrepresentation of a material fact on an immigration filing renders them inadmissible to the United States. 
Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). Petition proceedings, however, are not the appropriate 
forum for inadmissibility determinations. Matter of 0-, 8 l&N Dec. 295, 297 (BIA 1959). USCIS or another federal 
agency would make an admissibility determination in later proceedings. 
6