dismissed EB-3 Case: Printing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of' ne;frwmqT nrivacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 005 548 18 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date+,AR 3 0 2006 
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. 
 1153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 005 548 18 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center denied the employment-based preference immigrant 
visa petition that is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a printing company. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as 
an assistant press operator. As required by statute, a Form ETA 750 Application for Alien Employment 
Certification approved by the Department of Labor accompanies the petition. The director determined that 
the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary has the requisite experience as stated on the labor 
certification petition and denied the petition accordingly. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. 
Section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 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 unavailable in 
the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(1)(3)(ii) states, in pertinent part: 
(A) General. Any requirements of training or experience for slulled workers, professionals, or 
other workers must be supported by letters from trainers or employers gving the name, address, 
and title of the trainer or employer, and a description of the training received or the experience of 
the alien. 
(B) Skilled workers. If the petition is for a slulled 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. 
Eligibility in this matter hinges on the petitioner demonstrating that, on the priority date, the beneficiary had the 
qualifications stated on its Form ETA 750 Application for Alien Employment Certification as certified by the 
U.S. Department of Labor and submitted with the instant petition. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158 
(Act. Reg. Comrn. 1977). The priority date of the petition is the date the request for labor certification was 
accepted for processing by any office within the employment system of the Department of Labor. Here, the 
request for labor certification was accepted for processing on March 12, 2001. The labor certification states that 
the position requires two years of experience in the job offered. 
On the Form ETA 750 labor certification the beneficiary indicated that he worked for the petitioner as an 
assistant press operator from August 2000 until at least February 2 1, 2001, the date the beneficiary signed that 
form. The beneficiary also indicated that he worked fo n Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico as an 
assistant press operator from November 1992 to 
WAC 03 005 548 18 
Page 3 
With the petition counsel submitted a letter in Spanish and an English translation, dated February 21, 2001, 
- . , 
from a general manager at 
 n Mexico. The translation indicates that the beneficiary 
worked for that company operating all types of printing presses from 1992 to December 1996. 
On April 9, 2003 the California Service Center requested additional evidence in this matter. The subject 
matter requested was not directly relevant to the beneficiary's employment history. In response to that 
request, however, the petitioner provided copies of California Form DE-6 Wage Reports, employee earnings 
records prepared by its payroll service, and Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statements. 
The wage reports submitted show that the petitioner employed the beneficiary during all four quarters of 
2002. The employee earnings records confirm that the petitioner employed the beneficiary during that same 
period. The W-2 forms submitted show that the petitioner employed the beneficiary during 2000, 2001, and 
2002 and paid him $8,888.15, $23,07 1.80, and $23,647.56 during those years, respectively.' 
On June 2, 2003 the California Service Center issued another request for evidence in this matter. The service 
center requested, inter alia, evidence to establish that the beneficiary has the required experience. 
In response, counsel submitted a letter, dated July 8, 2003, fi-om the general manager of Best Internacional 
attesting to the same facts as the February 2 1, 200 1 letter. 
In response to a CIS request the American Embassy in Mexico City, Mexico investigated the beneficiary's 
ent in Mexico. The governmental agency in charge of business registration revealed that 
on August 22, 1997, before which it did not exist. Further, the general 
manager o 
 corroborated that information and also stated that he did not recognize the 
beneficiary's name as that of a former employee. Finally, the investigating officer attempted to confirm 
through Institute Mexicano de Servicios Sociales (IMSS), the Mexican social security system. That agency 
was unable to confirm the beneficiary's employment. 
On August 20, 2004 the California Service Center issued a Notice of Intent to Deny informing the petitioner 
of the evidence adverse to the petition, the report of the embassy investigator. 
In response counsel submitted a letter, dated September 6,2004, in Spanish from the general manager of 
of Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico and an English translation. 
 That letter states that 
began operations in January 1996 rather than August 22, 1997. 
w 
That letter fu beneficiary worked for , the 
predecessor of 
 from 1992 to 1996, w 
 egan operations and the 
company. 
 The letter does not state in which capacity the beneficiary 
Those 2000 W-2 form appears to indicate that the beneficiary worked for the petitioner during the last four months of 
2000. Therefore the evidence indicates that the beneficiary worked for the petitioner for approximately six months prior 
to the priority date. 
WAC 03 005 548 18 
Page 4 
worked for that other company.* 
Finally, the letter states that 
 changed its name tond that 
"enginee 
 ' who provided the previous employment verification letters, no longer 
words for the company. 
On September 29, 2004 the Director, California Service Center denied the petition, stating that the petitioner 
had not demonstrated that the beneficiary has the requisite 
director noted that the people identified as the general 
on the letters provided are not the same person identified as 
investigative report3 
On appeal, counsel submits (1) a letter dated November 10, 2004 from 
 general 
manager o(2) other documents in Spanish without the requisite English translations and 
certifications, and (3) a brief. 
In his November 10, 2004 letter states that the embassy investigator never contacted 
support his version of the history of m 
and of the beneficiary's employment history. 
In his brief counsel asserts that the November 10, 2004 letter and the untranslated evidence support the 
liiimmm 
eneficiary gained at least two years of experience in the proffered position working for 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of 
the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Further, the petitioner must resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence sufficient to demonstrate where the truth, in fact, lies, will 
not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (Cornrn. 1988). 
AAO will not consider foreign language documents submitted without the English translation required by 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, although counsel asserts that the untranslated Spanish documents 
submitted constitute independent evidence from a reliable source that supports the beneficiary's version of his 
The instructions to the Form ETA 750, Part B require a beneficiary to "list all jobs 
the alien is seeking certification. That the beneficiary did not list his employment for 
indicates that the employment was not related to the proffered position. 
WAC 03 005 5481 8 
Page 5 
employment history, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding.4 
A letter reiterating the beneficiary's claim of qualifying employment does not qualify as independent and 
objective evidence. Absent the translations of the alleged government documents the record contains no 
independent and objective evidence to challenge the accuracy of the embassy investigator. 
The evidence submitted does not demonstrate that the beneficiary has the requisite two years of experience. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is eligible for the proffered position. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. 
The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 
This office notes, however, that one of the documents is a certificate from the Mexican Social Security Administration 
purporting to show that the beneficiary worked for 
 beginning on August 2, 1995. 
That document states that the beneficiary's position with that company was Aydante General, which translates, "General 
HelperILaborer." That document, if 
 before this office, would constitute very 
alleged employment history, which states that he worked as a printing press operator for 
through December 1996. Because that document is not before this office, however, it forms no part of the basis of 
today's decision.