dismissed EB-3 Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-C-&A- LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 29, 2018 
PETITION: I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a construction company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an administrative support 
worker. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference 
immigrant classification. 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 Texas Service Center initially approved the petition, but subsequently revoked 
approval of the petition after concluding that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary 
possessed the minimum experience required on the labor certification for the proffered position. 
1 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider, and the Director determined that approval of 
the petition should remain revoked. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. The Petitioner asserts that the 
evidence establishes the Beneficiary's qualifying experience. 
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). 2 See section 
212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). By approving the labor certification, 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. 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 
1 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.'' The realization by the director that the petition was approved in error may 
be good and sufficient cause for revoking the approval. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
2 The date the labor certification is filed is called the "priority date." 
.
Matter ofC-C-&A- LLC 
Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, if USCIS 
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 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director revoked the petition's approval because the record did not establish that the Beneficiary 
has the experience required by the terms of the labor certification. A petitioner must establish a 
beneficiary's possession of all the experience specified on an accompanying labor certification by a 
petition's priority date. 3 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); see also l'v!atter ~[Wing's Tea House. 16 I&N 
Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'! Comm'r 1977); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'! 
Comm 'r 1971 ). As previously noted, a skilled worker must also possess at least t\vo years of 
training or experience. Section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) ofthe Act. 
In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, we must examine the job offer portion of a labor 
certification to determine the minimum requirements of an offered position. We may neither ignore 
a term of the labor certification, nor impose additional requirements. See K.R.K Irvine. Inc. v. 
Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1983); Madany v. Smith. 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-13 (D.C. Cir. 
1983); Stnvart Infra-Red Commissary o.fAfass., Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1981). 
Here, the labor certification states that 24 months of experience as an administrative assistant is the 
minimum experience requirement of the offered position. On the labor certification, the Beneficiary 
attested that she had at least 24 months of full-time, qualifying experience with a prior employer as 
follows: 
Job title Employer name Employer address Start date End date 
Administrative Hungary January I 0, February 1, 2006 
assistant 2003 
A petitioner must support a beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience with a letter from an employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). The letter must provide the name, address, and title of an employer, and a 
description of a beneficiary's experience. !d. Here, the Petitioner initially provided a letter from the 
the manager of who claimed that the Beneficiary 
worked at the company on a full-time basis as an administrative assistant from January 10, 2003, to 
February L 2006. 
However, as discussed by the Director in the notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), the Beneficiary's 
experience as described on the labor certification and in the supporting letters is inconsistent \vith other 
records showing that she \Vas in the United States during the periods of time that she claimed to have 
been working in Hungary. Specifically, USCIS records show that the Beneficiary entered the United 
3 In this case, the petition's priority date is March 12, 2007. 
2 
.
lli/a!ter ofC-C-&A- LLC 
States under the J -1 nonimmigrant exchange visitor program on August 13, 2001, and filed at least two 
applications to extend or change her status before departing the United States in September 2004. The 
Beneficiary appears to have reentered the Cnited 
States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor in October 2004, 
and filed at least one application to extend or change 
her status before departing the United States on 
June 16, 2005. After this, the Beneficiary appears to have reentered the United States on January 8, 
2006. Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary gained at least 24 months of 
full-time qualifying experience in Hungary \vorking for between January 2003 and 
February 2006 because she was present in the United States during much of that same period. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner confirmed that the experience claimed on the labor certification 
is not correct but claimed that this is an "innocuous error." The Petitioner submitted additional 
evidence that it claimed establishes that the Beneficiary gained at least 24 months of experience as an 
administrative assistant during a different period of time than that listed on the labor certification. The 
new evidence includes a statement from the managing director of who 
stated that the Beneficiary worked at the company as an administrative assistant from October 19, 1998, 
to July 31, 2001.4 The Petitioner also provided a copy of the Beneficiary's original employment 
contract, related pay stubs, ledger extracts, and bank statements from the Beneficiary. The Petitioner 
asserted that was unable to explain why letter ref1ected that the Beneficiary 
w-orked there from January 2003 to February 2006 rather than October 1998 to July 2001, but 
concluded that because letter \vas sent to the Petitioner's former attorney, the Beneficiary 
"would have been left unaware of the error." Finally, the Petitioner claimed for the first time that the 
Beneficiary gained additional qualit)ring experience as an administrative assistant working for 
in Hungary from August 1, 2004, until February 24, 2006. The Director found that the response to 
the NOIR did not resolve the contradictory information regarding the Beneficiary's claimed 
employment in Hungary and revoked approval of the petition, subsequently affirming his decision on 
motion to reopen and reconsider. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not fully address all of its evidence and 
maintains that the record, as a whole, establishes that the Beneficiary worked at from 
October 19, 1998, to July 31, 2001. For example, the Petitioner references bank statements, pay stubs, 
general ledger pages, and the Beneficiary's employment contract from and states that 
these documents establish that the Beneficiary was employed at as an administrative 
assistant from October 1998 to July 2001. The Director discussed these documents and concluded that 
although they show that intended to hire the Beneficiary to work as an administrative 
assistant and that it appears to have paid her between October 1998 and July 2001, the documents do 
not contain sufficient information to show that she was in fact employed fulltime as an administrative 
assistant and also do not resolve the Petitioner's prior, contradictory evidence. Consequently, the 
Director appears to have fully considered the Petitioner's new claims and related evidence individually 
and as a whole, but found that they \-vere insufficient to reviewed them in the context of the prior 
contradictory evidence. 
4 According to an employment letter from is also the Beneficiary's mother. 
3 
.
Matter C?fC-C-&A- LLC 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary was unaware of the incorrect employment 
information provided on and in support of the labor certification. For example, in response to the 
NOIR, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary did not know of claims that she had worked 
at from January 2003 to February 2006 because his letter went to the Petitioner. On 
appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary was not 
cognizant of representations on the labor 
certification because it was prepared and filed by an immigration consultant, and asks that we disregard 
the prior contradictory evidence about the Beneficiary's claimed experience, which would include the 
labor certification. However, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to 
make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 
176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Moreover, we may neither ignore a term of the labor certification, nor 
impose additional requirements. See, e.g., Madany. 696 F.2d at 1015 (stating that the "DOL bears 
the authority for setting the content of the labor certification"). Consequently, \Ve cannot disregard 
the information on the Petitioner's labor certification. 
Having attributed the contradictory information on the labor certification to the work of an immigration 
consultant, the Petitioner submits documents to show that it reported the consultant to the state of Nevv 
York; however, the record does not show that the consultant prepared the labor certification and 
supporting documents. Instead, the record contains a Form G-28, Notice of Appearance as Attorney or 
Representative, showing that the Petitioner was represented by an unrelated immigration attorney in 
filing the petition. We consider complaints based upon ineffective assistance against attorneys and 
accredited representatives, but the Petitioner has not claimed to have filed a complaint against the 
attorney whose signature is on the petition, and the related Form G-28. CfA1atter q{Lozada, 19 I&N 
Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), a(fd, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988) (requiring an appellant to meet certain 
criteria when filing an appeal based-on ineffective assistance of counsel). HO\vever, even if an 
immigration consultant was responsible for preparation of the initial evidence, there is no remedy 
available for a petitioner that assumes the risk of authorizing an unlicensed attorney or unaccredited 
representative to undertake representations on its behalf. See 8 C.F .R. § 292.1; see also Hernandez 
v. lvfukasey, 524 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2008) ("non-attorney immigration consultants simply lack the 
expertise and legal and professional duties to their clients that are the necessary preconditions for 
ineffective assistance of counsel claims''). 
Regardless, the record does not show that the Beneficiary was unaw·are of prior representations about 
her alleged experience from 2003 to 2006. Rather, the Beneficiary signed the labor certification at Part 
L under penalty of perjury, attesting that the representation of her work history, as described on the 
labor certification, was true and correct. In addition, on October 12, 2007, the Beneficiary filed a Form 
I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and included a Form G-325A, 
Biographic Information, on \Vhich she was asked to list her last occupation abroad. The Beneficiary 
listed only her \Vork as an administrative assistant at from January 2003 to February 
2006, and signed this document under penalty of perjury. An individual who signs a request or any 
document submitted to USCIS affirms that the individual has authority to sign the document, has 
knowledge of the facts being represented in the document, and attests to the veracity of the facts and 
claims made in the document. USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0 134.1, Signatures on Paper 
Applications. Petitions, Requests. and Other Documents Filed with US. Citizenship and 
4 
.
Matter ofC-C-&A- LLC 
Immigration Services, 6 (Feb. 18, 2018), http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. Therefore, 
the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary lacked knowledge of the information in letter 
and the labor certification is contradicted by her participation in those same assertions on the labor 
certification and on her ovln Form G-325A, as evidenced by her signature on both documents. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not resolved the inconsistencies between those documents and the 
claims made on the labor certification. Unresolved material inconsistencies raise doubt about the 
reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. 
Seeivfatterc?(Ho. 191&N Dec. 582.591-92 (BIA 1988). 
We uphold the Director's finding that the evidence does not resolve the contradictions in the record. 
The claims on the labor certification are contradicted by records showing that the Beneficiary was in 
the United States when she claimed to have been working in Hungary. The Petitioner's new claim 
that the Beneficiary gained qualifying experience as an administrative assistant at 
from October I9, I998, to July 3I, 2001, is not sufficiently supported by the record. We note that 
this employment was not listed on the labor certification. The omission of the Beneficiary's claimed 
experience from the labor certification application casts doubt on the experience's validity. See 
}vfatter of Leung, 16 I&N Dec. 12, 14-15 (Distr. Dir. 1976), disapproved of on another ground by 
"Hatter of Lam, I6 I&N Dec. 432 (BIA I978) (finding a foreign national's claim of qualifying 
experience to lack credibility where he omitted the experience from a labor certification application). 
Although the Petitioner has submitted documentation concerning this claimed employment \Ve find 
it insufficient to support the claimed experience for the following reasons. 
The letter from which attests to the Beneficiary's experience at from 
October, 19, 1998, to July 31, 200I, was prepared by the Beneficiary's o\vn mother. Rather than 
support her letter with independent evidence of the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying employment, 
claims that has only the employment contract to document the 
Beneficiary's claimed work there because the company is "required to retain and store for I 0 years 
the Employee's data, tax records, as well as other documents." After this period, claimed 
that the documents "must be discarded and destroyed." does not specify \Vhy the 
company is required to retain and destroy employment records on this schedule. Moreover, 
does not explain why the company retained the employment contract if was in 
fact required to destroy employee documents after I 0 years. The employment contract dated 
October 16, 1998, shows intent to employ the Beneficiary as an administrative 
assistant three days later, but do not establish that the Beneficiary engaged in full-time work for the 
stated period, it is not sufficient to shO\v that she actually worked there from October 19, 1998, to 
July 3 L 200 I. Finally, the supporting pay stubs that the Petitioner included show that 
transferred money to the Beneficiary's account, but these do not specify the nature of the 
work or services for which she was compensated. Consequently, aside from the fact that these 
documents are for a period of employment not listed on the labor certification, they are not sufficient 
to establish that the Beneficiary has at least two years of full-time qualifying experience as an 
administrative assistant at between October 19, 1998, and July 31, 2001. 
5 
.
Afatter ofC-C-&A- LLC 
For all of the reasons stated above, rather than resolve prior inconsistencies in the record, the 
Petitioner's new claims regarding the dates of the Beneficiary's alleged qualifying experience with 
serve as additional contradictory evidence. 
With respect to the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary has alternate qualifying experience \Vith 
in Hungary, we note that this employment was not listed on the labor certification. As 
noted, the omission of the Beneficiary's claimed experience from the labor certification application 
casts doubt on the experience's validity. See Matter of Leung, 16 I&N Dec. at 14-15. Moreover, the 
claimed dates of employment with from August 1, 2005, until February 24, 2006, are 
inconsistent with the dates the Beneficiary initially claimed on the labor certification and 
Form G-325A to have been employed with The Petitioner submitted bank 
statements to corroborate this claimed employment with These bank statements show 
that transferred money into the Beneficiary's "investment account" on a monthly basis, 
but do not reflect that the money was provided in exchange for her \vork as an administrative 
assistant. The deposits are for varying amounts ranging between 250 to 15 8,546 Forint from 
September 2005 to April 2006. Hmvever, because the deposits are of varying amounts they could 
not be considered to establish full-time, qualifying employment. Moreover, several deposits were 
made after the Beneficiary entered the United States in January of 2008. Consequently, they do not 
show that paid her for full-time qualifying employment in Hungary. Further, the 
Petitioner has not otherwise explained how the Beneficiary gained the alleged experience with 
w·hile USCIS records show the Beneficiary was in the United States for a significant 
period of this time. Consequently, the new claim is not sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary 
has at least 24 months of qualifying experience as an administrative assistant. 
Accordingly, based on the above conflicting information about the Beneficiary's employment history, 
the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she has at least 24 months of 
qualifying experience required for the position of administrative assistant on the labor certification or 
for classification as a skilled worker. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not establish the Beneficiary's possession of the experience required for the offered 
position and the requested classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as ll1atter ~fC-C-&A- LLC, ID# 1045539 (AAO Mar. 29, 2018) 
6