dismissed EB-3 Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-N-A- LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 4, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a motorcycle manufacturer/R&D company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as an industrial engineer under the immigrant classification of skilled worker. See 
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, Texas Service Center, initially approved the petition. The Director subsequently 
revoked the petition's approval on multiple grounds. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal as 
abandoned, dismiss the appeal based on the record, and invalidate the underlying labor certification 
with a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact by the Petitioner and the Beneficiary. 
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The instant petition, Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, was filed by the Petitioner on 
July 11, 2007. As required by statute, the petition was accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, 
Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification), which was filed with the 
Department of Labor (DOL) on June 1, 2007, and certified by the DOL on June 8, 2007. 
The petition was initially approved by the Director on August 30, 2008. The Director issued a notice 
of intent to revoke the approval of the petition on August 14, 2014. On September 29, 2014, the 
Director revoked the approval of the petition on three grounds: (1) the record did not establish the 
Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage continuously from the priority date of the petition 
(June 1, 2007) up to the present; (2) the record did not establish that the Beneficiary has a bachelor's 
degree in industrial design or a foreign educational equivalent, as required by the labor certification; 
and (3) the record did not establish that the Beneficiary satisfied all of the experience and associated 
requirements of the labor certification by the priority date. 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and motion to reconsider on October 30, 2014. The Director 
denied the motions on February 3, 2015. The Petitioner filed a timely appeal on March 6, 2015, 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-N-A- LLC 
along with a brief from counsel and supporting documentation. We issued a notice of intent to 
dismiss (NOID) on August 20, 2015, followed by a request for evidence on November 4, 2015. The 
Petitioner responded to each with additional briefs and documentation. 
On May 23, 2016, we issued a second NOID which stated, in pertinent part: 
With regard to the educational requirement of the labor certification, you asserted on 
the ETA Form 9089 (Part J) that the Beneficiary has a foreign equivalent degree to a 
bachelor's degree in industrial design from the 
Mexico), completed in 
2000. As evidence thereof, you submitted photocopied documents which appeared to 
show that the Beneficiary was issued a "titulo de Licenciado en Diseno Industrial" 
(title of License in Industrial Design) by the 
on November 28, 2000. However, a Spanish-language transcript of the Beneficiary's 
courses at the university, dated August 16, 2000, listing courses which appeared to be 
completed by the Beneficiary over eight semesters in the years 1997-2000, was not 
consistent with an English-language translation you submitted , dated February 25, 
1999, which only listed courses completed in the years 1997-1999, apparently over 
five semesters. We addressed this conflicting transcript evidence in our initial NOID, 
to which you responded with an English translation that correlated with the eight­
semester Spanish-language transcript. Based on that documentation it appeared that 
the Beneficiary received a "titulo de Licenciado en Diseno Industrial" in 2000 after 
completing an eight-semester degree program. 
To verify the authenticity of the Beneficiary's educational documents , we requested 
the assistance of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) field office 
in Mexico City. The results of that inquiry cast doubt on the veracity of the 
Beneficiary's claim to have earned a Titulo de Licenciado en Diseno Industrial in 
Mexico. USCIS verified with the that 
studied at the university for only five semesters, from 
August 1996 to December 1998, did not complete the eight semesters required for a 
degree, and that the document purported to be the Beneficiary's Titulo de Licenciado 
en Diseno Industrial, dated November 28, 2000, is fraudulent. The Legal Department 
of the Central Registry of Professionals in also confirmed that there is no 
record for on its database, and that the professional 
identity card number - - written on one of the degree documents belongs 
to another individual. 
In light of the above information, it appears that the Beneficiary does not have the 
educational credential claimed in the labor certification - a foreign equivalent degree 
to a bachelor 's degree in industrial design - and that the documents submitted in 
support of this claim -the alleged Titulo de Licenciado en Diseno and accompanying 
transcripts - are fraudulent. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-N-A- LLC 
Section 212( a)( 6)(C)(i) of the Act states that "in general - any alien, who by fraud or 
willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks (or has sought to procure, or who has 
procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission to the United States or other 
benefit provided under the Act is inadmissible." 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(d) provides that: 
After issuance, a labor certification may be revoked by ETA using the 
procedures described in Sec. 656.32. Additionally, after issuance, a 
labor certification is subject to invalidation by the DHS or by a Consul 
of the Department of State upon a determination, made in accordance 
with those agencies' procedures 
or by a court, of fraud or willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact involving the labor certification 
application. If evidence of such fraud or willful misrepresentation 
becomes known to the CO [Consular Officer] or to the Chief, Division 
of Foreign Labor Certification, the CO, or the Chief of the Division of 
Foreign Labor Certification, as appropriate, shall notify in writing the 
DHS or Department of State, as appropriate. A copy of the notification 
must be sent to the regional or national office, as appropriate, of the 
Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General. 
We stated in the second NOID that based on the derogatory information received from the USCIS 
field office, we intended to invalidate the labor certification based on a finding of fraud or willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact, and dismiss the appeal because the petition is not supported by a 
valid labor certification , as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(i). 
We advised the Petitioner that it could submit additional evidence to rebut the derogatory 
information received from the USCIS field office in Mexico City, in accordance with the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), and that any response to the NOID must be received by us within 33 
days. To date, the Petitioner has not responded to the second NOID. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not respond to the second NOID within the permitted 33-day period. Nor has the 
Petitioner responded up to the date of this decision. Thus, the Petitioner has not submitted any 
evidence to rebut the derogatory information provided by the USCIS field office indicating that the 
educational 
documents submitted by the Petitioner are fraudulent and that the Beneficiary does not 
have a degree from the Therefore, in accordance with the 
regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(d), we will invalidate the labor certification based on a finding of 
willful misrepresentation of a material fact by the Petitioner and the Beneficiary.' 
1 By misrepresenting the Beneficiary ' s educational background and submitting fi·audulent documents to USCIS , and 
making misrepresentations to DOL, the Petitioner and the Beneficiary sought to procure bene.fits provided under the Act 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ojV-N-A- LLC 
Furthermore, if a petitioner fails to respond to a NOID by the required date, the appeal may be 
dismissed as abandoned, dismissed based on the record , or dismissed for both reasons. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(13)(i). In accordance with this regulation , we will dismiss the appeal as abandoned, and 
dismiss the appeal based on the record because it is not supported by a valid labor certification , as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(i). 2 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. See section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361 (2012) ; Matter ofOtiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). That burden has not 
been met in this case. 
ORDER: 
FURTHER ORDER: 
The appeal is dismissed. 
The approval of the ETA Form 9089, ETA Case Number 
is invalidated under 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(d), based on the 
Petitioner's and Beneficiary's willful misrepresentation of a material 
fact. 
Cite as Matter ofV-N-A- LLC, ID# 14483 (AAO Aug. 4, 2016) 
through willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
2 Even if the labor certification was valid, the appeal may be dismissed because the evidence does not establish that the 
Beneficiary has the requisite educational degree to qualify for the job offered under the terms of the labor certification. 
The labor certification requires a bachelor's degree in industrial design, together with 36 months of experience in the 
proffered job. No alternate field of study is accepted , no combination of education and experience is permitted, and a foreign 
equivalent degree is pem1itted pursuant to the terms of the labor certification . The Petitioner must demonstrate that, on the 
priority date, the Beneficiary had the qualifications stated on its labor certification application, as certified by the DOL and 
submitted with the instant petition. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158 (Acting Reg' I Comm'r 1977). As set 
forth in our second NOlO restated in part herein, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has a bachelor's 
degree in industrial design as required by the labor certification. 
4