dismissed EB-3 Case: Oil And Gas Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 2, 2024 In Re: 32462814 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Skilled Worker) 
The Petitioner, an oilfield services company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a snubbing 
superintendent. It requests classification of the Beneficiary under the third-preference, immigrant 
classification for skilled workers. 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 category allows a U.S. business to sponsor a 
foreign national for lawful permanent resident status based on a job offer requiring at least two years 
of training or experience. 
The Texas Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary possessed the minimum experience required for the offered position. The matter 
is before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To permanently fill a position in the United States with a foreign worker, a prospective employer must 
first obtain certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § l l 82(a)(5). DOL approval signifies that insufficient U.S. workers are able, willing, qualified, 
and available for a position. Id. Labor certification also indicates that the employment of a foreign 
national will not harm wages and working conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. Id. 
If DOL approves a position, an employer must next submit the certified labor application with an 
immigrant visa petition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Among other things, USCIS considers whether a beneficiary meets the 
requirements of a certified position and a requested immigrant visa classification. If USCIS approves 
the 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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
A petitioner must establish a beneficiary's possession of all the education, training, and experience 
specified on an accompanying labor certification by a petition's priority date. 1 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), 
(12); see also Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977); 
Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The priority date in this case is April 
24, 2020. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3) 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 description of the training received or the experience of the alien. 
The underlying labor certification states that the position's minimum requirements are 96 months of 
experience in a related snubbing services position, with no education. On the labor certification at 
Part H.14, Specific Skills or Other Requirements, the Petitioner states: 
Must have experience with or knowledge of: (i) horizontal drilling, high pressure 
snubbing, and workover operations for/in the oil and gas industry; (ii) managing and 
supervising oil and gas well programs; (iii) coordinating technical high-pressure 
snubbing, well invention, and work-over and completion operations; (iv) setting-up oil 
and gas operations in domestic and multi-geographical regions; (v) managing an 
Operational Budget as well as rig Profit and Loss Management; and (vi) snubbing unit 
design and commissioning. 
Must also have a valid driver's license and meet minimum driving requirements for 
company msurance purposes. 
Must be able to work weekends and evenings as well as travel to various customer 
offices and worksites (sometimes remote and abroad/international) 10% of the time. 
Must successfully pass a pre-employment background check and drug screen. 
On the labor certification, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies for the offered position 
based on the following experience: 
• As a snubbing supervisor withl Ifrom February 2, 2016 to July 15, 2016; 
• As a snubbing superintendent with from March 13, 2013 to July 1, 
2015; 
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.S(d). 
2 
• As a snubbing/workover superintendent with __________ from 
November 20, 2011 to April 4, 2013; 
• As a project manager/HWU supervisor with ___________ from 
August 4, 2011, to November 11, 2011; .-------------------, 
• As a drilling rig manager/snubbing with from 
January 3, 2010 to June 10, 2011; 
• As a snubbing/workover superintendent with _______ from September 1, 
2008 to September 1, 2010; 
• As a snubbing/HWO supervisor wit from September 
15, 2006 to August 19, 2008; and, 
• As a senior operator with ___________ from September 1, 2000 to 
September 14, 2006 
The record includes letters describing the Beneficiary's work experience, including: 
• A letter dated July 7, 2021, signed byI I former W orkover and Operations 
Manager with I _ Ukraine Operations. states that heMr. state 
directly supervised the Beneficiary during his full-time employment with I II I as "snubbing/Workover Superintendent" in Ukraine, from November 20, 
2011 to April 4, 2013. 2 
• A letter dated July 6, 2021, signed byI I former Senior Supervisor with
I IMr. states that he directly supervised the Beneficiary 
during his full-time employment with I Iin Dubai, as 
"Snubbing/W orkover Superintendent," from September l, 2008 to September 1, 2010. 
The record also includes three letters dated July 2, 2021, each signed by I Mr. 
states that he was employed with I Ias a Southern District Operations 
Manager from 2007 to 2014, as a Technical Sales Representative from 2014 to 2017 and as a Snubbing 
General Manager from 2017 to 2018. In the letters Mr. states that the Beneficiary was a full-
time employee of _________ during the following periods: 
• As a "Project Manager/HWU Supervisor," from August 4, 2011 to November 11, 
2011; 
• As a "Snubbing/HWU Supervisor," from September 15, 2006 to August 19, 2008, 
and; 
• As a "Senior Operator," from September 1, 2000 to September 14, 2006. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) informing the Petitioner that the letters were not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary possesses the required 96 months of experience for the 
offered position. The Director determined that, because the letters were issued by former employees 
of the Beneficiary's former employers and not by the former employers directly, the letters were not 
2 The Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience with in Ukraine through April 2013 overlaps 
with his claimed employment on the labor certification withl lfrom March 2013 in Gabon. While not a 
basis for our decision, the Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in any further filings. The Petitioner must resolve 
inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582. at 
591-92. 
I I
3 
I 
"probative or credible." The Director specifically noted that, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(i), if 
a required document is unavailable, a petitioner must demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence 
pertinent to the facts at issue. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter from counsel but did not provide additional 
evidence. The Petitioner's counsel asserted that all of the letters attesting to the Beneficiary's 
experience "provide the name, address, and title of the employer/supervisor as well as a description of 
the [Beneficiary's] experience." The Petitioner's counsel stated that both Mr. and Mr. I 
stated in their letters that they supervised the Beneficiary during his employment. Addressing the 
letters from Mr.c=] the Petitioner's counsel stated, "While it is correct that Mr. is a former 
employee ofl Ihe was in fact employed there with [the Beneficiary]." 
After reviewing the Petitioner's response to the RFE the Director denied the petition. For the reasons 
explained in the RFE, she again determined that the letters were insufficient to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's qualifying experience. She, therefore, concluded that the Petitioner had not established 
that the Beneficiary met the minimum experience requirements for the offered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again asserts that the letters in the record are sufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses the required 96 months of experience for the offered position. The Petitioner 
submits a brief from its counsel and no additional evidence. In its brief, counsel asserts that the letters 
were issued by the most qualified source, as the authors of the letters "supervised [the Beneficiary] in 
his previous positions and thus had firsthand knowledge of his experience and qualifications." 
In adjudicating immigration benefit requests, USCIS regularly reviews affidavits, testimonials, and 
letters from both laypersons and recognized experts. To be probative, a document must generally 
provide: (1) the nature of the affiant's relationship, if any, to the affected party; (2) the basis of the 
affiant's knowledge; and (3) a specific - rather than merely conclusory - statement of the asserted facts 
based on the affiant' s personal knowledge. Matter of Chin, 14 I&N Dec. 150, 152 (BIA 1972); see 
also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) (requiring affidavits in lieu of unavailable required evidence from 
"persons who are not parties to the petition who have direct personal knowledge of the event and 
circumstances"); Matter of Kwan, 14 I&N Dec. 175, 176-77 (BIA 1972); Iyamba v. INS, 244 F.3d 
606, 608 (8th Cir. 2001 ); Dabaase v. INS, 627 F .2d 117, 119 (8th Cir. 1980). A petitioner may submit 
a letter or affidavit that contains hearsay or biased information, but such factors will affect the weight 
to be accorded the evidence in an administrative proceeding. See Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 
461 (BIA 2011) ( citations omitted). Probative evidence beyond a letter or affidavit may be considered 
when submitted to resolve inconsistencies or discrepancies in the record. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Ultimately, to determine whether a petitioner has established eligibility 
for a requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence, USCIS must examine each piece of 
evidence - both individually and within the context of the entire record - for relevance, probative value, 
and credibility. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The Petitioner's counsel notes in its brief that "while letters from the employer are the preferred form 
of evidence for employment verification, 'other documentation . . . will be considered if they are 
unavailable' ... provided that the petitioner explains why when submitting an alternative." (emphasis 
added). But the Petitioner has not provided an explanation for submitting alternative evidence in this 
matter. The Petitioner's counsel states that "letters from current leadership at _______ 
4 
and I I would be less probative than those from past supervisors because that new 
leadership did not personally observe [the Beneficiary's] work." However, the Petitioner does not 
provide support for this statement. The Petitioner does not assert that letters from the Beneficiary's 
former employers are unavailable. It has not stated or provided evidence that the Beneficiary's former 
employers are no longer operating or are otherwise unable to provide documentation of his 
employment. We acknowledge that, in some instances, a former supervisor may be the most qualified 
source to attest to an individual's work experience, or specific skills obtained. This does not, however, 
exempt the Petitioner from complying with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) and 
demonstrating the unavailability of required evidence. 
The Petitioner's counsel states in the appeal brief that each of the letters in the record "was still from 
a 'former employer' (in the sense that Mr. Mr. and Mr.I did employ him in their own 
previous jobs)." However, counsel's unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., 
Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal 
are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight"). In his letters, Mr. does not 
state that he supervised the Beneficiary. Nor does he explain how he has knowledge of the 
Beneficiary's experience. Although Mr. lists the dates of employment and positions he held with 
_________ his employment with the company began in 2007. Mr. does not 
explain how he has information about or can attest to the Beneficiary's employment with the company 
from September 1, 2000, when his own employment did not begin until 2007. The Petitioner must 
resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the trnth lies. Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, at 591-92. Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate 
the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration 
benefit. Id. 
Here, the Petitioner relies only on testimonial evidence from the Beneficiary's former coworkers in 
attempt to establish his claimed employment experience, without providing independent, objective 
evidence in support of this testimony. Because the letters do not fully explain how the author had 
knowledge of the information stated, further evidence is required. The record does not include other 
documentation to corroborate the Beneficiary's claimed employment, such as income tax or payroll 
records. The Petitioner does not assert that these records are unavailable for any reason. It is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). 
The Petitioner has not established with independent, objective evidence that the Beneficiary possesses 
the required 96 months of experience in a related snubbing services position, as required by the labor 
certification. The Beneficiary has not overcome the basis of the Director's denial. 
Although not raised by the Director, we also determine that the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary meets all the minimum requirements for the offered position. As noted above, the labor 
certification states that the offered position requires a valid driver's license and the individual must 
meet minimum driving requirements for company insurance purposes. The record does not include 
documentary evidence that the Beneficiary has a valid driver's license or meets the driving 
requirements. As the Petitioner was not aware of this deficiency, this does not form the basis of our 
decision in this matter. However, this must be addressed in any further filings. 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered job or the 
requested immigrant visa category. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 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. 
6