dismissed EB-3 Case: Freight Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-E-LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 25, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a "freight transportation arrangement" business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
customer service manager. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the 
third preference immigrant category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 denied the petition on the ground that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary had two years of qualifying experience as a customer service manager, 
as required by the terms of the labor certification. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the documentation of record 
establishes that the Beneficiary had the requisite experience as a customer service manager to meet 
the terms of the labor certification. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer obtains an 
approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(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 similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II) of the 
Act. Second, the employer files an immigrant visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, ifUSCIS 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. 
.
Matter of C-E- LLC 
To qualify for classification as a skilled worker a beneficiary must have at least two years of training 
or experience. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B). A beneficiary must also meet the specific educational, 
training, experience, or other requirements of the labor certification. Id All requirements must be 
met by the petition's priority date. 1 See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting 
Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
11. ANALYSIS 
At issue in this case is whether the Beneficiary has two years of qualifying experience to meet the 
requirement of the labor certification. 
A Requirements of the Labor Certification 
The labor certification that accompanied the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, states that the minimum experience required for the proffered position of customer service 
manager is 24 months in the job offered, and that experience in an alternate occupation is not 
acceptable. According to the labor certification the Beneficiary exceeded the 24-month experience 
requirement by working as a customer service manager for a 
cargo/shipping company in Venezuela, from June 2005 through May 2012. This 
is the only employment experience listed for the Beneficiary on the labor certification. 
With its initial evidence the Petitioner submitted a letter dated August 22, 2017, from human 
resources manager, stating that the Beneficiary was employed as a customer service 
manager from June 2005 through May 2012, and listing her job duties. The Petitioner also submitted 
documentary evidence of the Beneficiary's educational credentials from 
in Venezuela, which include a baccalaureate course of study resulting in the title of architect in 2003 
and a post-graduate course of study resulting in the title of construction specialist in civil engineering 
in 2008. 
In a request for evidence (RFE) the Director noted that the above letter from conflicts with 
information provided in two nonimmigrant visa (NIV) applications by the Beneficiary which describe 
a different job with In the first NIV application, submitted in June 2011, the Beneficiary 
identified her primary occupation as engineering, stated that she was currently employed by 
and described her job duties as "an architect in the engineering department." In the second NIV 
application, submitted in June 2016, the Beneficiary indicated that was her previous employer, 
stated that her job title was "assistant project manager," and described her job duties as "assist[ing] 
the project manager." In response to the RFE the Petitioner submitted another letter from 
HR director who stated that the company is a family-run business in which the Beneficiary has a 10% 
ownership interest, that the company used her skills as an architect and construction manager on an 
intermittent basis, but that her principal duties were those of a customer service manager. The 
Petitioner also submitted a letter from the Beneficiary which aligned with the substance of the HR 
1 The priority date of a petition is the date the underlying labor certification is filed with the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
In this case the priority date is May 16, 2017. 
2 
.
Matter of C-E- LLC 
manager's letter. The Beneficiary stated that while she is an architect by profession, she had only 
sporadic architectural duties at and her recurrent duties were those of a customer service 
manager, which included management assistance in construction and equipment marketing projects. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not resolved the evidentiary discrepancies discussed in the 
RFE, and denied the petition. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits six letters from companies stating that they are former customers of 
at various times between 2005 and 2012, and claiming that the Beneficiary was 
customer service manager. In addition, the Petitioner submits copies of the Beneficiary's monthly 
bank account statements from 2011 and 2012 showing that her salary was regularly deposited, and the 
Beneficiary's Venezuelan tax returns for the years 2011 and 2012. The Petitioner acknowledges that 
neither the bank account statements nor the tax returns identify the Petitioner's employer or job title 
in 2011 and 2012, much less describe her job duties. As for the letters from former customers of 
each was authored by an engineer or a company official who claimed that the Beneficiary 
served as customer service manager for their respective equipment purchase and servicing 
contracts with and described the customer service functions she allegedly performed. 
The Petitioner complains that the Director failed to mention the corporate records previously submitted 
in response to the RFE which show that the Beneficiary's ownership interest in goes back to 
2003. The Beneficiary's long-time ownership interest in however, is not an issue in this 
proceeding. Nor is the fact of the Beneficiary's prior employment with The issue on appeal 
is the nature of the Beneficiary's job with and the duties she performed, and whether they met 
the requirements of the labor certification. 
The Petitioner could have provided persuasive evidence of the beneficiary's employment in a customer 
service role, such as human resources or personnel records issued contemporaneously with her 
employment. Rather than submitting contemporaneous documentary evidence or detailed information 
regarding the beneficiary's experience at the Petitioner submitted letters dated six years after 
the alleged employment occurred from former customers claiming that the Beneficiary 
served in a customer service capacity in connection with their contracts with However, we 
find that this evidence is outweighed by the information the Beneficiary provided on two separate NIV 
applications, neither of which identified any duties as a customer service manager in her employment 
with In the first NIV application, completed when the Beneficiary was still working at 
in 2012, the Beneficiary identified "engineering" as her primary occupation and summarized her job 
duties as "an architect in the engineering department." Thus, the Beneficiary did not identify customer 
service management as her primary occupation and did not identify any customer service management 
component in the brief description of her job duties. In her second NIV application, completed in 
2016, the Beneficiary named as her previous employer, identified her job title as "assistant 
project manager," and summarized her job duties as "assist the project manager." Both the job title 
and the job duties were considerably different on the second NIV application, and the Beneficiary 
once again did not identify any customer service management component in the brief description of 
her job duties. As far as the evidence shows, the Beneficiary did not claim to have worked for 
in the capacity of a customer service manager at any time before the instant petition and the associated 
labor certification were filed in 2017. 
3 
.
Matter of C-E- LLC 
USCIS may assign less weight to testimonial evidence, particularly when it is contradicted by other 
evidence in the record of proceeding. See Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190, 
194 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Therefore, while we have weighed the submitted evidence, it is not 
sufficient in this case to establish whether the beneficiary was actually employed in a customer service 
role. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). To meet this burden, the petitioner must 
prove by a preponderance of evidence that it and the beneficiary are qualified for that benefit. Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The "preponderance of the evidence" standard 
requires that the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is "probably true," where the 
determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Id 
(quoting Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). In evaluating the evidence, the 
truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. Thus, in 
adjudicating the petition pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, USC IS must examine 
each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the 
context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary gained any experience as a customer service manager with Therefore, the 
Beneficiary does not have two years of qualifying experience as required by the labor certification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-E-, Inc., ID# 2841559 (AAO Mar. 25, 2019) 
4