dismissed EB-3 Case: Jewelry

ibtifying data deleted to 
prevent c ib\&::ly unwarranted 
invasim of p~~l 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 01 01 1 54826 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 0 2 2281 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 1 53(b)(3) 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 01 01 1 54826 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the Director, 
California Service Center. On further review of the record, the director determined that the beneficiary was not 
eligible for the benefit sought. The director served the petitioner with notice of intent to revoke the approval of 
the preference visa petition. The director subsequently revoked approval of the petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a retail jewelry sales and jewelry repair furn. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in 
the United States as a jewelry calligraphy designer and engraver. As required by statute, the petition was 
accompanied by an individual labor certification approved by the Department of Labor. 
The record indicates that the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (1-140) was filed on October 10,2000. It was 
initially approved on November 1,2000. Following an overseas investigation, the director concluded that the I- 
140 was approved in error and issued a notice of intent to revoke the petition on June 27, 2005. The director 
determined that the petitioner's claims as to the beneficiary's past employment experience appeared to be 
fraudulent. The petitioner was afforded thlrty days to offer such evidence or argument in opposition to the 
proposed revocation. The petition's approval was subsequently revoked on September 7, 2005, pursuant to 
section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 11 55. 
On notice of appeal, the petitioner, through counsel, asserts that the overseas investigation was flawed and that it 
requested an additional sixty days in order to submit a brief and/or additional evidence. An accompanying letter 
from counsel indicates that the documents from Vietnam are being sought including copies of business licenses 
and/or permits in the name of the previous and current owner(s) of the business. 
As of this date, more than sixteen months later, nothing further has been received to the record.' This decision is 
rendered on the record as it stands. 
Section 205 of the Act, states: "[tlhe Attorney General may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and 
sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Section 203@)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(3)(A)(i), provides for the granting of preference 
classification to qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this 
paragraph, of performing skilled labor (requiring at least two years training or experience), not of a temporary or 
seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(1)(3) further provides: 
(ii) Other documentation- 
(A) General. Any requirements of training or experience for skilled workers, 
professionals, or other workers must be supported by letters from trainers or 
employers giving the name, address, and title of the trainer or employer, and a 
1 
 No response has been received to a recent facsimile inquiry from this office. 
WAC 01 011 54826 
Page 3 
description of the training received or the experience of the alien. 
(B) Skilled workers. If the petition is for a skilled worker, the petition must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien meets the educational, training or 
experience, and any other requirements of the individual labor certification, meets 
the requirements for Schedule A designation, or meets the requirements for the 
Labor Market Information Pilot Program occupation designation. The minimum 
requirements for this classification are at least two years of training or experience. 
The petitioner must demonstrate that a beneficiary has the necessary education and experience specified on 
the labor certification as of the priority date. The filing date or priority date of the petition is the initial receipt 
in the DOL's employment service system. See 8 C.F.R. 204.5(d); Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N 
158 (Act. Reg. Cornrn. 1977). Here, the Form ETA 750 was accepted for processing on July 13, 1998.' The 
ETA 750B, signed by the beneficiary on June 15, 1998, indicates that he worked for "Dat Loi Jewelry" in 
Vietnam, as a jewelry engraverlcarver from October 1992 to the present (June 15, 1998). 
Item 14 of the ETA 750A describes the education, training and experience that an applicant for the certified 
position must have. In this matter, item 14 states that three years of work experience in the job offered 
described in item 9 as "jewelry calligraphy designer engraver." The beneficiary's employment with Dat Loi 
Jewelry is the only employment experience listed on the ETA 750B. 
carving Chinese characters on rings." This acknowledgement is dated 
"verification from the local authorities" from two other 
 is active at the 
address listed above and that the two jewelers worlung fo 
The record contains a memorandum from the U.S. consulate indicating that on March 20, 2001, it called the 
The address of the shop is not register 
 siness name but rather to a 
named (the phone number is . The investigator spoke with 
who is the son of 
 the author of the job letter . hcated that 
the Jewelry shop was established on 15 January 1999 and that he is t e on y person who 
2 
 If the petition is approved, the priority date is also used in conjunction with the Visa Bulletin issued by the 
Department of State to determine when a beneficiary can apply for adjustment of status or for an immigrant visa 
abroad. Thus, the importance of reviewing the bonafides of a job opportunity as of the priority date, including a 
prospective U.S. employer's ability to pay the proffered wage is clear. 
WAC 01 011 54826 
Page 4 
works as a silversmith. 
 also indicated that his brothem was issued a 
business license for the shop. 
The memo observes that the mob letter did not specifically confirm that the applicant had ever 
worked at the m jewelry shop and that based on a conversation with son, 
jewelry shop was not even in existence at the time the Labor Certification and job letter were 
On June 27, 2005, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke the petition, informing the petitioner of the 
consulate's investigation and questioning the validity of the beneficiary's work experience with the- 
Jewelry shop. The petitioner was afforded thirty days to respond with additional evidence or argument in 
support of the petition. 
The director revoked the petition on September 7, 2005. Noting that no response from the petitioner was 
received, he determined that the consulate's investigation revealed that the beneficiary was not eligible for the 
benefit sought based on the information offered regarding his alleged work experience at the-~ 
shop. The director concluded that "employment verification letter appears to be fraudulent" and that the 
beneficiary had not met minimum requirements at the time the labor certification was filed. 
On the notice of appeal, counsel asserts that the consulate investigation was flawed in that the investigator 
never went to the business location or spoke to the previous or current business owner who is the son of the 
previous owner. 
In this case, although it is noted that the consulate investigation could have been more detailed, the petitioner 
has not provided any persuasive evidence to rebut 
 specific information that the shop was not 
established until 
 while not identified as an owner of the shop, is identified as a 
silversmith and one of 
 sons. His information is inconsistent with the beneficiary's claim of 
employment at this shop since 1992. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-592 (BIA 1988) states: 
It is incumbent on the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. 
The petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary's qualifying work experience was acquired as of the July 
13, 1998, priority date set forth on the labor certification. As the petitioner has failed to provide any objective 
evidence resolving the inconsistency raised by statement that the shop was not established until 
January 15, 1999, the AAO cannot conclude that the director's revocation of the approval of the petitioner's I- 
140 was erroneous. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary acquired the requisite qualifying 
work experience as of the priority date and has not met the minimum requirements set forth on the labor 
certification. 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board of 
Immigration Appeals has stated: 
WAC 01 01 1 54826 
Page 5 
In Matter of Estime, . . . this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a 
visa petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the 
evidence of record at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, 
would warrant a denial of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to 
meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the 
evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, including any evidence or 
explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to 
revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,590 (BIA 1988)(citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N 450 (BIA 1987)). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. 
The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.