dismissed EB-3 Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-D- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 3, 2018 
APPEAL Of NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETlTION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a provider of prepaid debit cards and cash reload services, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a financial analyst. It requests her classitication as a professional under the third­
preference immigrant category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based, "EB-3" category allows a U.S. business to 
sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status in a position requiring at least a 
bachelor's degree. 
The Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director found the 
accompanying labor certitication invalid because it contains a job offer from a different company 
than the Petitioner. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts itself as a successor in interest of 
the labor certification employer. 
Upon (/e novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION PROCESS 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer seeking 
to permanently employ a foreign national in the United States must obtain U.S. Depanment of Labor 
(DOL) certification of its job ot1er. See section 2!2(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
~ 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). The DOL must determine whether the country lacks able, willing, qualified, and 
available workers fi.1r an offered position, and whether employment of a foreign national would hun the 
wages and working conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. lei. 
If the DOL certifies a position, an employer must submit the cel1ification with an immigrant visa 
petition to USC IS. See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. If USC IS approves a petition, a 
foreign national may finally 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. 
Maller ofG-D- Cmp. 
II. SUCCESSORSHIP IN INTEREST 
Unless accompanied by an application for Schedule A designation or documentation of a 
beneficiary's qualifications for a shortage occupation, a petition for a professional must include a 
valid, individual labor certification. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(i). A labor certification remains valid 
only for the particular job opportunity stated on it. 20 C.F.R § 656.30(c)(2). 
A business may use a labor certification tiled by another employer only if it establishes itself as a 
successor in interest of the employer. See Matter of" Dial Auto Repair Shop. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 481, 
482-83 (Comm'r 1986). A successor must demonstrate its acquisition of rights and obligations 
needed to operate a predecessor's business. A successor must: I) document the transfer of all or a 
relevant part of the predecessor to it; 2) demonstrate that, but for the change in employer, the job 
opportunity remains the same as certified: and 3) establish eligibility for a petition's approval, including 
the abilities of itself and the predecessor to pay a proffered wage. ld 
Here, the labor certi tication identities the employer as a different company than the Petitioner. The 
Petitioner asserts that, alkr the certification's issuance and before the petition's tiling, it acquired the 
employer and operates its lom1er prepaid card management services. Specifically, the Petitioner claims 
that it acquired the labor certification employer's parent company and that both the labor certification 
employer and its parent company are now non-functioning entities. As such, the Petitioner argues that a 
successor relationship exists between it and the labor certification employer. 
In support of its claims, the Petitioner submitted a letter and a copy of its 2015 annual report indicating 
its acquisition that year of the labor ce1tilication employer's parent company. In response to a request 
tor evidence ( RFE), the Petitioner also provided copies of parts of its acquisition "agreement and plan." 
The agreement indicates a merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of the Petitioner and the labor 
certification employer's parent company. According to the agreement, upon merging, the Petitioner's 
subsidiary would tem1inatc, and the labor certification employer's parent company would survive as a 
wholly owned subsidiary of the Petitioner. The Petitioner also submitted copies of a signed certificate, 
indicating the merger's occuiTence. 
However, the evidence submitted is insuHicient to establish the Petitioner as the successor-in-interest to 
the labor certification employer. The agreement and the certificate demonstrate the Petitioner's 
acquisition of the labor certification employer's parent company. But the agreement is missing pages 
and docs not indicate what provisions were made concerning the subsidiaries of the merged companies, 
including the labor certification employer. Absent this information, the record docs not document the 
transfer of all or part of the labor ceitilication employer to the Petitioner, as required, nor does the 
record establish whether the Petitioner assumed rights and obligations needed to operate the labor 
certification employer's business. See Maller of Dial Auto Repair, 19 l&N Dec. at 482 (requiring a 
claimed successor "to fully explain the manner by which the petitioner took over the business" and to 
provide a copy of a contract or agreement between the entities). 
2 
Mauer ofCi-D- Corp. 
Moreover, both the labor certification employer and its parent company appear to continue to exist. 
Although the Petitioner claims that these two entities became "non-functioning" after transfetTing their 
prepaid card management programs to the Petitioner in August 2015, the Petitioner has not submitted a 
copy of the agreement transferring these programs or otherwise provided evidence to corroborate the 
claims. If the labor certification employer continues to operate as a separate entity, although now a 
subsidiary of the Petitioner, the ofTered job opportunity would appear to remain with the labor 
certification employer. If the offered job remains with the labor certification employer. the Petitioner 
may not be considered a successor in interest in this petition. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, we lind that the record does not document the Petitioner's claimed 
successorship of the labor certification employer. 
Ill. THE BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFYING EXPERIENCE 
Although not mentioned by the Director, the record also does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
possession of the experience required by the terms of the labor certification. A petitioner must establish 
a beneficiary's possession of all DOL-certified job requirements by a petition's priority date. Matter of 
Win1(s Tea House. 16!&N Dec. 158, 160 (Acting Reg'! Comm'r 1977). In evaluating a beneliciary's 
qualifications, USCIS must examine the job offer portion of a labor certification to determine the 
minimum requirements of an offered position. USCIS may neither ignore a certification tem1, nor 
impose additional requirements. See Tongatapu Woodcraft Haw .. Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 
1309 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that immigration authorities are "bound by the DOL's certification"). 
Here, the labor certification states the minimum requirements of the ofTered position of financial analyst 
as a master's degree and three years of experience in the job offered or in "(a ]ny related occupation." 
On the certification, the Beneficiary attested to her possession, by the petition's priority date, of about 
three years and eight months of full-time qualifying experience, including about two years with the 
labor certification employer, and about two years and three months of part-time qualifying experience. 
A labor certification employer may not rely on experience that a foreign national gained with it, unless 
the experience was in a substantially different position or the employer can demonstrate the 
impracticality of training a U.S. worker for the offered position. 20 C.F.R. § 656.l7(i)(3). Here, the 
experience gained with the labor certification employer was in the offered position and may therefore 
not be considered qualilying experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(5)(ii) (delining a "substantially 
comparable" position as one requiring performance of the same job duties more than 50 percent of the 
time.) 
The Petitioner submitted letters documenting the Beneficiary's remaining experience, including: one 
year and eight months of full-time experience; and two years and three months of part-time experience. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)( I) (requiring a petitioner to support a beneficiary's claimed, qualifying 
experience with letters from employers). For labor certification purposes, however, pat1-time 
experience equals half the amount of full-time experience. See Matter of Cable Television Labs. Inc., 
2012-PER-00449, 2014 WL 5478115, *I (BALCA Oct. 23, 2014) (finding 16 months of part-time 
3 
Malter of G-D- Corp. 
experience equivaknt to eight months of full-time experience). Thus, the Beneficiary's two years and 
three months of part-time experience equates to only about 14 months of full-time experience. 
Combined with her other one year and eight months' of full-time experience, the record does not 
establish the Beneficiary's possession of the requisite three years of full-time employment experience. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established _itself as a successor in interest of the labor certi !!cation employer. 
The record therefore does not establish the validity of the accompanying certification. The record 
also does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's possession of the experience required by the terms of the 
labor certi tication. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller of C-D- Corp., 10# 835847 (AAO May 3, 2018) 
4