dismissed EB-3 Case: Parking Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE22,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a parking business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a cashier. It requests 
classification of the Beneficiary as an unskilled worker under the third preference immigrant 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(iii). 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 
less than two years of training or experience. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center initially approved the petition. Subsequently, the 
Director revoked the petition's approval because, pursuant to section 204(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1154( c), the Beneficiary had previously engaged in marriage fraud for the purpose of evading the 
immigration laws. 
The Petitioner appealed the decision. We rejected the appeal as untimely and remanded the matter 
to the Director to review as a motion. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center adjudicated the 
motion and affirmed the revocation of the petition's approval. 1 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner continues to assert that the 
Beneficiary did not engage in marriage fraud. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
A. The Employment-Based Immigration Process 
Employment-based immigration is generally a three-step process. First, an employer obtains an 
approved ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor 
certification) from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). Next, 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. 
1 
The Vermont Service Center no longer adjudicates employment-based immigrant visa petitions. Therefore, the 
Director of the Nebraska Service Center properly considered revocation of the petition's approval. 
Matter of P- Corp. 
Finally, if USCIS approves the immigrant visa petitiOner, the foreign national applies 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. 
B. The Notices oflntent to Revoke 
After granting a petition, USCIS may revoke the petition's approval "at any time" for "good and 
sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155. If supported by the record, a director's 
realization that a petition was erroneously approved may justify revocation. Matter ol Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
Good and sufficient cause exists to issue a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) where the record at the 
time of the notice's issuance, if unexplained or unrebutted, would have warranted the petition's 
denial. Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 451 (BIA 1987). Similarly, revocation is proper if the 
record at the time of the decision, including any explanation or rebuttal evidence provided by a 
petitioner, warranted a petition's denial. !d. at 452. 
In the instant case, good and sufficient cause supported the Vermont Service Center Director's 
issuance of the NOIR. See Oddo v. Reno, 17 F. Supp. 2d 529 (E.D. Va. 1998) (holding that the 
immigration service did not err in revoking a petition's approval under section 204( c) of the Act 
where a beneficiary's spouse told officers that the marriage was entered into for immigration 
purposes). As the NOIR indicated, the record at the time of the notice's issuance indicated that the 
Beneficiary had "entered into a marriage for the sole purpose of circumventing U.S. immigration 
laws." The U.S. citizen spouse of the Beneficiary told an immigration otlicer that he had married 
the Beneficiary in order to allow her to remain in the United States, and that in exchange for his 
cooperation, he was paid a sum of money by her. He subsequently withdrew the immediate relative 
petition he had filed on her behalf. The Beneficiary and her counsel were sent notice of this 
statement by certified mail. 
If unexplained or unrebutted, the record at the time of the NOIR's issuance would have warranted 
the petition's denial, as approval was barred by section 204( c) of the Act. The Director of the 
Vermont Service Center therefore properly issued the NOIR and properly revoked the petition's 
approval. 
In addition, following the AAO's remand of the case, the Director of the Nebraska Service Center 
sent another NOIR. Good and sufficient cause supported the issuance of that notice, as the record 
contained substantial and probative evidence that the Beneficiary's former marriage was entered for 
the purpose of evading the immigration laws. Therefore, the Director of the Nebraska Service 
Center also properly issued the notice. 
2 
.
Matter of P- Corp. 
C. Section 204( c) of the Act 
Section 204( c) of the Act, which governs the procedures for granting immigrant status, states that: 
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b )2 no petition shall be approved if 
(1) the alien has previously been accorded, or has sought to be accorded, an 
immediate relative or preference status as the spouse of a citizen of the United 
States or the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, by 
reason of a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been entered 
into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, or 
(2) the Attorney General has determined that the alien has attempted or conspired 
to enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. 
The regulation corresponding to section 204(c) of the Act, at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(l)(ii), states: 
Section 204( c) of the Act prohibits the approval of a visa petition filed on behalf of an 
alien who has attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage for the purpose of 
evading the immigration laws. The director will deny a petition for immigrant visa 
classification filed on behalf of any alien for whom there is substantial and probative 
evidence of such an attempt or conspiracy, regardless of whether that alien received a 
benefit through the attempt or conspiracy. Although it is not necessary that the alien 
have been convicted of, or even prosecuted for, the attempt or conspiracy, the 
evidence of the attempt or conspiracy must be contained in the alien's file. 
In Matter ofTawjik, 20 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 1990), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that visa 
revocation pursuant to section 204( c) may only be sustained if there is substantial and probative 
evidence in the record of proceeding to support a reasonable inference that the prior marriage was 
entered into for the purpose of evading immigration laws. !d. at 167. If substantial and probative 
evidence of marriage fraud exists, a petitioner must show by a preponderance of evidence that a 
beneficiary did not marry for the purpose of evading immigration laws. Matter of"Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1, 3 (BIA 1983); Matter of Phillis, 15 I&N Dec. 385, 386 (BIA 1975). The central question in 
determining the bona .fides of a marriage is whether the parties intended to establish a life together at 
the time of their marriage. Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3; see also Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 
604, 611 (1953). 
In the instant case, the Beneficiary entered the United States on December 9, 1995, in nonimmigrant 
visitor status. She married a U.S. citizen, , on 1997, in 
Maryland. On October 16, 1997, Mr. filed a Form 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, 
2 
Subsection (b) of section 204 ofthe Act refers to preference visa petitions that are verified as true and forwarded to the 
U.S. Department of State for issuance of a visa. 
3 
.
Matter of P- Corp. 
on behalf of the Beneficiary. 3 See section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) 
(defining the term "immediate relatives" to include spouses of U.S. citizens).4 The couple attended 
an interview on 1998, at the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) office in 
Philadelphia, P A, with former counsel. 5 As noted by the Director in his decision, there were several 
discrepancies in the interview testimony, including the identity of the persons who attended the 
wedding ceremony and sent congratulatory wedding cards, as further detailed below; how Mr. 
family learned of the marriage; the Beneficiary's state of knowledge about Mr. 
military service; and the lack of knowledge of the marriage on the part of relatives of Mr. 
More specifically, the record contains copies of several greeting cards purportedly given to the 
Beneficiary and Mr. upon their marriage. During the interview, the Beneficiary and Mr. 
gave conflicting answers about the identities of the senders of the cards. One sender was identified 
by the Beneficiary as the daughter of their landlord (who lived in the house where they purportedly 
resided), and Mr. identified the sender as a distant relative of the Beneficiary who he had never 
met. Another sender was identified by the Beneficiary as long-term friend from Sierra Leone, while 
Mr. identified the sender as his manager at his place of employment. Yet another sender (a 
couple) was identified by the Beneficiary as her aunt and uncle that live in New Jersey, while Mr. 
identified the sender as his brother-in-law from Sierra Leone, a man he has never met. 
Further, the Beneficiary and Mr. gave conflicting answers regarding the attendees at their 
wedding ceremony. Mr. indicated that their landlord, and their landlord's niece and her 
cousin, attended the wedding. The Beneficiary indicated that her aunt and uncle from New Jersey, 
and her friend from Sierra Leone and his family and friends, attended the wedding. 
The record contains an affidavit dated May 4, 1999, handwritten by Mr. It states that he never 
resided with the Beneficiary; that he married the Beneficiary in order to allow her to remain in the 
United States; that in exchange for his cooperation, he was ofiered $2000 by the Beneficiary and 
paid a total of $1500 by her; and that he requested permission to voluntarily withdraw the Form I-
130 petition. The request for permission to withdraw the Form I -130 petition was granted. The 
record contains a notice of acknowledgment of withdrawal dated June 10, 1999, which was mailed 
to Mr. and his counsel, and restated his sworn testimony from the May 4, 1999, affidavit. The 
Beneficiary and her counsel received certified notice of the adverse decision based on Mr. 
testimony. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits no new evidence and restates assertions made in its prior appeal, 
all of which were addressed by the Nebraska Service Center Director in his decision. Relating to the 
issue of marriage fraud, the Petitioner states on appeal that the record contains a sworn statement 
3 The record indicates that the Beneficiary filed for divorce from Mr. in 200 I. 
4 The Beneficiary concurrently filed a Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, with 
the Form 1-130 petition. 
5 The record contains two letters dated November I 0, 1998, and February 16, 1999, from former counsel to the 
Beneficiary and Mr. Counsel indicated that he was aware an investigation was being conducted into the bona 
fides of the marriage following their interview, and that he would provide additional evidence. By letter dated March 9, 
1999, he submitted additional documentation to support the case. 
4 
.
Matter of P- Corp. 
from Mr. dated September 10, 1998, indicating that his marriage to the Beneficiary was 
legitimate; that it contains a handwritten statement of the Beneficiary dated February 12, 2008, 
indicating that she spoke with Mr. and he was pressured by the immigration officer to make a 
false statement and he regretted it; that indicated in an atlidavit that he sub-let a 
bedroom from the Beneficiary and Mr. , which the Petitioner asserts refutes the assertion that 
the couple never lived together; that Mr. received his tax documents and other correspondence 
at the address where the couple resided together; that pursuant to a letter from the couple 
met with an insurance agent to discuss their insurance needs; and that the resulting insurance policy 
purchased by the Beneficiary named Mr. as the beneficiary. 
The Petitioner further asserts on appeal that it submitted evidence that the Beneficiary and Mr. 
married in good faith, including leases, utility bills, joint bank statements, and receipts for furniture 
purchases.6 In his decision, the Director of the Nebraska Service Center significantly detailed the 
evidence in the record, including: 
• Atlidavit of the Beneficiary dated January 31, 2008, stating that "my marriage was real." 
The Director stated that the Beneficiary did not refute or materially contradict the facts in the 
sworn statement of Mr. (which were made known to the Beneficiary through the denial 
decision of her prior Form 1-485 on June 10, 1999); 
• One page unsigned writing to the Beneficiary's counsel dated February 12, 2008, indicating 
that the writer spoke with Mr. and he felt pressured by the immigration otlicer to make 
a false statement and he regretted it. The Director noted that this writing, purportedly written 
by the Beneficiary, carries little evidentiary weight because it is not an affidavit and is not 
signed; 
• Aflidavit of Mr. dated September 10, 1998, attempting to explain the discrepancies in 
the visa interview. The Director noted the existence of two contradictory statements from 
Mr. and indicated that the May 4, 1999, statement is more credible because it is a 
statement tending to go against the affiant's pecuniary and penal interests.7 Further, the 
Director stated that the credibility of the 1999 statement is bolstered by the contemporaneous 
voluntary withdrawal of the Form 1-130, which is consistent with the 1999 statement. Also, 
the record contains no additional communications regarding the withdrawn Form I-130 from 
Mr. following the issuance of the Acknowledgement of Withdrawal notice dated June 
10, 1999; 
• Affidavit of dated September 10, 1998, stating that he and his wife have 
sub-rented a bedroom in their house to the Beneficiary and Mr. since August 1, 1997. 
He states that he knows the Beneficiary "as a family friend" and that the marriage "is a real 
6 
Evidence that a marriage was not entered into for the primary purpose of evading the immigration laws may include, 
but is not limited to, proof that the beneficiary has been listed as the spouse on insurance policies, property leases, 
income tax forms, or bank accounts, and testimony or other evidence regarding courtship, wedding ceremony, shared 
residence, and experiences together. Matter of Phillis, 15 I&N Dec. at 387. 
7 
The Petitioner must resolve the inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-592 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to 
reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. /d. 
5 
.
Matter of P- Corp. 
and valid one." The Director noted that the aflidavit indicates a different start date than the 
date listed in the lease agreement, and that it does not state that the Beneficiary and Mr. 
cohabitated together as spouses at the location of the lease. Further, the Director noted that 
Mr. was more likely than not a witness to the payment of money by the Beneficiary 
to Mr. in exchange for marrying her; 
• Partial lease agreement for one bedroom located at P A, 
beginning August 10, 1997, and expiring September 9, 1997 (with a month-to-month renewal 
term), between " ~ '' and " " 
• Envelope with postmark dated January 21, 2000, addressed to Mr. at the 
address; 
• Letter from insurance dated May 31, 1998, addressed to Mr. & Mrs. 
at the address, together with a $25,000 life insurance policy dated July 20, 
1998, naming the Beneficiary as insured and Mr. as beneficiary; 
• Automobile insurance policy issued by to the Beneficiary, 
valid from February 19, 1999, to August 19, 1999. Mr. is named as a driver of the 
vehicle; 
• Partial lease agreement beginning February 1, 1999, and ending January 31, 2000, for 
property located at P A, between and 
, with listed as a resident; 
• Furniture store invoices dated January 30, 1999, addressed to the Beneficiary and Mr. 
• Furniture store invoice dated February 13, 1999; 
• Cable invoice from addressed to the Beneficiary and Mr. (the 
date and address are illegible); 
• Envelope from addressed to Mr. at the 
address; 
• Statement/check from to Mr. at the 
address dated January 23, 2002; 
• Undated letter from to Mr. at the 
address; 
• Statements from dated December 1998, January 1999, and February 1999, 
addressed to the Beneficiary and Mr. at the address; 
• Statements from dated January 1998 to May 1998, addressed to the 
Beneficiary and Mr. at the address; 
• Payment coupon to a cable company addressed to the Beneficiary and Mr. at the 
address; 
• Energy bill from dated October 14, 1999, addressed to the Beneficiary and Mr. 
at the address; 
• Record change form for account dated February 11, 1999, changing Mr. 
address from the address to the address. The 
Beneficiary's name is not listed on the form; and 
8 According to the affidavit of Mr. 
incorrectly on the lease. 
in the record, his first name is spelled '' " His name is spelled 
.
Matter of P- Corp. 
• Invoice from 
Mr. at the 
surplus store dated June 2, 1998, addressed to the Beneficiary and 
address. 
Regarding the joint purchase receipts, notices from suppliers or service providers, and copies of joint 
bank statements, the Director stated that the joint bank statements indicate some activity over a short 
period of time, but not a lot of activity over a long period of time as asserted by the Petitioner. We 
note that the record contains receipts for rents purportedly paid by the Beneficiary and Mr. at 
the PA address from. 1997 through June 1998. While the 
receipts do not indicate how the rents were paid, the checking account statements in the record do 
not show that any corresponding rent checks were written on that account, or that cash was 
withdrawn from the account for those payments. For example, a receipt shows rent of $200 was 
paid on May 2, 1998. However, the checking account statement for the period dated April 27, 1998, 
to May 14, 1998, shows no cash withdrawals and no checks written in the amount of $200 during 
that period. 
The furniture receipts, the Director noted, indicated that the couple purchase furniture, but do not 
demonstrate that they lived together in the residence as spouses in a bona fide marriage. The 
Director further stated that Mr. was encountered living at a different residential address with 
his girlfriend and her children not long after the January 1999 furniture purchase and bank change of 
address form. 
The Director noted that the although the insurance documents were relevant and credible evidence of 
the existence of insurance coverage, they are assigned only moderate probative value because they 
came into existence well after the parties' marriage on 1997, and only after the parties' 
"problematic interview( s) at the Philadelphia INS office, where questions arose about the bona fides 
of the marriage." Significantly, the record contains no evidence of the courtship of the Beneficiary 
and Mr. or shared personal experiences of the couple. 
The Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the marriage was bona 
fide. As noted by the Director, evidence in the record indicating that the marriage was not bonafide 
includes: interview discrepancies relating to the identity of the persons who attended the wedding 
ceremony, how Mr. family learned of the marriage, the Beneficiary's lack of knowledge 
about Mr. military service; the lack of knowledge of the marriage on the part of relatives of 
Mr. , Mr. presence at a different address than the claimed marital address with his 
girlfriend (not the Beneficiary) and her children; the affidavit of Mr. that the Beneficiary paid 
him to enter into the marriage and that he had never resided with the Beneficiary, which the 
Beneficiary had notice of based on her adjustment application denial; Mr. withdrawal of the 
Form I-130; and the Beneficiary's failure to declare on her employment-based Form 1-485 that she 
had previously applied for permanent residence.9 
9 
On the Beneficiary's Form 1-485 filed on April 17, 2006, she indicated at Part 3.A. that she had never applied for 
permanent residence in the United States. The Form 1-485 was denied on April 28, 2008, following the revocation of the 
approval ofthe Petitioner's Form 1-140 on her behalf. 
.
Matter of P- Corp. 
Our de novo review of the record establishes that substantial and probative evidence in the record 
demonstrates that the Beneficiary entered a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration 
laws. The Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that the marriage was bonafide. 
Approval ofthe Form I-140 petition is therefore barred by section 204(c) ofthe Act. 
D. Beneficiary Qualifications 
Although not addressed by the Director, we independently note that, even if the Petitioner had 
established that the petition's approval was not barred by section 204(c) of the Act, the record does 
not establish that the Beneficiary possesses the required education for the position. 
A petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the time the priority date 
is established and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(g)(2), 103.2(b)(l), (12); see also Matter (~f Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 
(Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977); Matter qf Katigbak. 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The 
priority date in this case is July 24, 2002. In the instant case, the labor certification states the 
minimum requirements for the offered position are eight years of grade school and four years of high 
school. There are no training or experience requirements for the position. 
On the labor certification, the Beneficiary indicated that she attended in 
, Sierra Leone, from September 1974 to June 1980, and received her high school diploma. 
However, the record contains no evidence of the Beneficiary's education, such as copies of 
transcripts or diplomas. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possessed 
the education required by the labor certification. 
II. CONCLUSION 
In summary, the record at the time of the revocation of the petition's approval established that the 
Beneficiary married Mr. in an attempt to evade the immigration laws. According, section 204( c) 
of the Act bars approval of the Petitioner's Form I-140 petition on behalf of the Beneficiary. The 
record also does not establish the Beneficiary's possession of the required education by the petition's 
priority date. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P- Corp., ID# 270058 (AAO June 22, 2017)