dismissed EB-3 Case: Production Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Z-G- CORP. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 11,2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a supplier and fabricator of natural stone products, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as 
a production engineer. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a professional under the third 
preference immigrant classification. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based immigrant 
classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a professional with a baccalaureate degree for 
lawful permanent resident status. 
The Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did 
not establish, as required, that the Petitioner made a bona fide job offer to the Beneficiary, and that 
the Beneficiary was qualified for the offered job. The Director also determined that the Petitioner 
fraudulently or willfully made a misrepresentation on the labor certification, and he invalidated the 
labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the job offer is bonafide; that 
the Beneficiary was qualified for the offered job; and that the Petitioner did not fraudulently or 
willfully make a misrepresentation on the labor certification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION PROCESS 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer obtains 
an approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) 1 See section 
212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). By approving the labor certification, the DOL 
certifies that there are insufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available for the 
offered position and that employing a foreign national in the position will not adversely affect the wages 
and working conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II) of 
the Act. Second, the employer files an immigrant visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and 
1 The priority date of a petition is the date the DOL accepted the labor certification for processing, which in this case is 
April 8, 20 II. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
Matter of Z-G- Corp. 
Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, if USCIS 
approves the petition, 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. 
II. BONA FIDE JOB OPPORTUNITY 
The Director denied the petition, in part, because the record does establish the bona .fides of the job 
opportunity. A labor certification employer must attest that "[t]he job opportunity has been and is 
clearly open to any U.S. worker." 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(c)(8). This attestation "infuses the recruitment 
process with the requirement of a bona fide job opportunity: not merely a test of the job market." 
Maller of Modular Container Sys., Inc., 89-INA-228, 1991 WL 223955, at *7 (BALCA 1991) (en 
bane); see 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(1)2 A relationship between a petitioner and a beneticiary triggering 
· concerns about the bonafide.\· of a job opportunity "is not only of the blood; it may also be tinancial, 
by marriage, or through friendship." Muller of Sunmart 374, 2000-INA-93, 2000 WL 707942, at *3 
(BALCA May 15, 2000). If a petitioner knowingly misrepresented the bona fides of a job 
opportunity, USCIS may invalidate a labor certification after its issuance. See 20 C.F.R. § 
656.30(d). 
In this case, the Petitioner attested on the . accompanying labor certification that "[t]he job 
opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified United States worker." Part C. 9 on the 
ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Labor Certification, also asked: "Is the employer a 
closely held corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship in which the alien has an ownership 
interest, or is there a familial relationship between the owners, stockholders, partners, corporate 
officers, incorporators, and the alien?" The Petitioner responded: "No." 
In determining the bona fides of a job opportunity, adjudicators must consider multiple tactors, 
including but not limited to, whether a foreign national: is in a position to control or influence hiring 
decisions regarding the offered position; is related to corporate directors, officers, or employees; 
incorporated or founded the company; has an ownership interest in the company; is involved in the 
management of the company; sits on its board of directors; is one of a small group of employees; has 
qualifications matching specialized or unusual job duties or requirements stated in the labor 
certitication; and is so inseparable from the sponsoring employer because of his or her pervasive 
presence that the employer would be unlikely to continue in operation without the foreign national. 
Modular Container, 1991 WL 223955, at *8-10. 
The DOL adopted the holding in Modular Container at 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(1), which states: 
Alien influence and control over job opportunity. If the employer is a closely held 
corporation or partnership in which the alien has an ownership interest, or if there is a 
familial relationship between the stockholders, corporate officers, incorporators, or 
2 The Petitioner submitted correspondence from several applicants for the offered job. The record does not establish why 
these applicants were rejected during the recruitment process. 
2 
.
Maller o.fZ-G - Corp. 
partners, and the alien, or if the alien is one of a small number of employees, the 
employer in the event of an audit must be able to demo nstrate the existence of a bona 
fide job opport unity, i.e. the job is avai lable to all U.S. workers .. . 3 
The Direct or reviewed the totality of the circumstances in this case and determined that the record 
does not estab lish the existence of a bona fide job opportunity. Specifica lly, he found that the 
Beneficiary had ownership and control of the Petitioner; that the Beneficiary is the Petitioner's sole 
employee; and that the Beneficiary IS insepa rab le from the Petitioner's ownership , control, and 
operations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Benefici ary was not a shareholder of the Petition er w hen the 
labor certification was filed in 2011 and that he transfe rred ownership of the corporation to another 
individu al in 2009. The Petiti oner also asserts that the Benefic iary has been an employee of the 
Petition er since 2009; that he does not have the abi lity to influence hiring decisions; that he 
is not 
involved in the managem ent of the compan y; and that he is not related to the Petitione r's 
shareholder , director, and officer. 
Upon review of the totali ty of the circumstances in this case and cons ideration of the Modular 
Container factors, we agree with the Director that the record does not esta blish the existence of a 
bonafid e job oppo rtunity. We will examine each Modular Container facto r below . 
• Is the Beneficiary in a position to control or influence hiring decisions regarding the 
offered position? The record contains an affidav it dated November 5, 20 16, from 
states that he is 
the sole s harehold er, sole director , and Presid ent of the 
Petiti oner, and that he has the right to hire , pay, supervise , or otherw ise control the work of 
the Beneficiary. In response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOlO), the Petit ioner 
asserted that does not pay himself wages , but he is activel y involved in each 
project that the Petitioner undertakes. However, the record contains no evidence of 
active parti cipation in the company. For example, none of the Petitioner' s invoices, 
3 If a petitioner business answers "yes" to Part C.9 of the ETA Form 9089, an audit may be triggered and DOL may 
request the following documentation from the petitioner: 
( l) A copy of the articles of incorporation, partnership agreement, business license or similar 
documents that establish the business entity; ! 
(2) A list of all corporate/company officers and shareholders/partners of the corporation/firm/business. 
their titles and positions in the business' structure, and a description of the relationships to each other 
and to the alien beneficiary; 
(3) The financial history of the corporation/company/partnership, including the total investment in the 
business entity and the amount of investment of each officer, incorporator/partner and the alien 
beneficiary; and 
(4) The name of the business' official with primary responsibility for interviewing and hiring 
applicants for positions within the organization and the name(s) of the business' official(s) having 
control or influence over hiring decisions involving the position for which labor certification is sought. 
(5) If the alien is one of I 0 or fewer employees, the employer must document any family relationship 
between the employees and the alien. 
3 
.
MaJier ofZ-G- Co11J. 
• 
• 
• 
receipts, or sales contracts list his name. Further, none of the customer review s s ubmitted by 
the Petitioner contain name. Instead , they all refer to the work of the 
Beneficiary. While the Petitioner's organi zational chart shows that oversees the 
company's accountant, attorney, and rT serv ices, these services are all provid ed by outside 
contractors and not by employees of the Petitioner. The organizatio nal chart also shows that 
oversees the Beneficiary, but there is no description of job duties in 
the record. On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that establishes the company's 
policie s and procedur es, and the Benefic iary must abide by those policies and procedures. 
However, the record contains no evidence support ing this assertion. The orga nizational chart 
indicates that the Beneficiary controls the day-to-day work of the Petitioner 's business, 
including hiring and overseeing contracto rs for paint, tile, e lectrical, p lumbing, and 
fabrication/installation of countertops. 4 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary has been employed as a production 
engineer with the Petitioner in H-1 B nonimmigrant status since March 18, 2008 . Howeve r, 
the Petitioner submitted two of the Beneficiary ' s employm ent agree ment s dated July 24, 
2009 . The y both indicate that the Beneficiary was emplo yed as an operation s and sales 
manager. While neither agreement lists his duties, his title of manager indicates that he was 
involved in the management of the company with potential to control or influe nce the hiring 
decisions regarding the offered position of produc tion engineer. Another employmen t 
agreement dated August 26, 2009, indicates that the Beneficiary was employed as an 
operation s and sales manager. The record indicates that the Beneficiary is in a position to 
control or influenc e hiring decisions regarding the offered position. 
Is the Beneficiary related to corporate directors , officer s, or employees? The Petitioner 
asserted in response to the NOlO that the Beneficiar y is not related to the sole 
director and officer of the Petitioner. Tht: Bene ficiary is the Petitioner's sole employee. 
Did the Beneficiary incorporate or found the company? The Beneficiary was the initial 
incorp orator , sharehold er, director, officer , and registered agent of the Petitioner. 
Does the Beneficiary have an ownership interest in the company? The record contains 
stock certificates of the Petitioner. The stock certificates show that the Beneficia ry was the 
initial sole shareholder of the Petitioner , with 100 shares issued to him on December 6, 2007; 
that the Beneficiary's stock certificate was cancelled; and that was issued 100 
shares of the Petitione r on July 24, 2009. The stock transfer ledger shows that the 
Beneticiary ' s shares were transferred to · on July 24, 2009. A stoc k transfer 
agreement dated July 24, 2009, shows that the Benefi ciary transferred 100 shares of the 
Petitioner's stock to The November 2016 affidavit from states that 
he is the sole shareholder of the Petitioner. 
4 The Petitioner asserts on appeal that it designs , create s, sells, and installs natural stone products for kitche ns and 
bathroom s. · 
.
Maller ofZ-G- Corp. 
However , the Petitioner submitted its 2009 and 2016 federa l tax return s showing the 
Beneficiary as the sole shareholder of the corporation. 5 In respon se to the Director 's request 
for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner asserted that the accountant made a mistake in the salarie s 
and wages portion of the 2009 federal tax return. It attached an amended 2009 return to its 
RFE response that still showed the Beneficiary as 100% shar eholder of the company. The 
Petitioner also subsequently submitted amended its 2016 tax return to reflect as 
the sole shareholder. However, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in 
an effort to make a deficient petitio n conform to USCIS requiremen ts. See Matter (~f lzummi , 
22 l&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc . Comm 'r 1988). Furt~er, the amended tax return shows no 
evidence of submission to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or its receipt or processing by 
the IRS.6 We require an IRS-certified copy of the amended returns to estab lish that they was 
actuall y received and processed by the IRS. The amended return s submitted by the Petitioner 
are not certified copie s. Thus , we will examine the version of the Petitioner's tax returns that 
were initially submitted with the petition , and not the amended versions. These returns 
• indicate that the Beneticia ry was the sole shareholder of the Petitione r in 2009 and 2016. The 
Petitioner has not resolved this inconsistenc y in the record with indepe ndent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho , 19 l&N Dec. 582, 59 1-92 ( BIA 
1988). 
• Is the Beneficiary involved in the management of the company? The Petitioner submitted 
two of the Beneficiary 's employment agreements dated July 24, 2009. They both indicate 
that the Beneficiary was employed as an operation s a nd sales manager. While neither 
agreement lists his duties, his title as . manager indicates that he was involved in the 
mana gement of the company. The Petitioner also submitted the Beneficiary's employment 
agreement dated August 26, 2009. It also indicates that the Beneticiary was emp loyed as an 
operations and sales manager. The Petitioner 's organi zational chart indicates that the 
Beneficiary oversees the contracted work of the business includin g paint , tile, electrical , 
plumbing , and fabricati on/installation of countertops. Thus , the record indicates that the 
Beneficiary is involved in the management of the compan y. 
• Does the Beneficiary sit on the company's board of directors? While t he Beneficiary was 
the initial sole direct or of the Petitioner starting in 2007, he resigned as a dire cto r in July 
2009. 
• Is the Beneficiary one of a small group of employees? The Petitioner's e mp loyme nt tax 
return s identify the Benefi ciary as sole employee of the Petitioner. While the Petitioner used 
5 The tax returns were prepared and filed by the same accountant that the Petitioner had used to prepare and file all of its 
tax returns in the record. It is not clear why the accountant would have been mistaken as to the company's ownership in 
2009 and 20 16. 
6 The Petitioner submitted a transcript of its 2009 tax return dated September 6, 20 17, which showed no amendmellls 
since it the tax return was originally processed by the IRS on April 19,2010. 
5 
Matter o[Z-G- Corp. 
additional contract workers during the relevant period, the Beneficiary was its only 
employee. 
• Does the Beneficiary have qualifications matching specialized or unusual job duties or 
requirements stated in the labor certification? In this case, the labor certification for the 
position of production engineer requires a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering and 
two years of engineering experience working with granite (cutting, designing, QC). As 
discussed herein, the Beneficiary meets these specific requirements. 
• Is the Beneficiary so inseparable fro~ the sponsoring employer because of his or her 
pervasive presence that the employer would be unlikely to continue in operation 
without the foreign national? The Beneficiary is founder and sole employee of the 
Petitioner and appears to oversee all of its work with its customers. The work of the 
Petitioner is' unlikely to continue without him. 
Therefore, based on the totality of the circumstances in this case, we will affirm the Director's 
finding that the job offer was not bona fide because the Beneficiary is in a position to control or 
influence hiring decisions regarding the offered position; he was the initial incorporator, shareholder, 
director, officer, and registered agent of the Petitioner; he appears to have an ownership interest in 
the Petitioner; he is involved in the management of the Petitioner; he is the Petitioner's sole 
employee; he has qualifications matching specialized requirements stated in the labor certification; 
and he is so inseparable from the Petitioner because of his pervasive presence that the Petitioner 
would be unlikely to continue in operation without him. 
lil. WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION OF A MATERIAL FACT 
AND !NV ALIDA TION OF LABOR CERTIFICATION 
The Director determined that the Petitioner fraudulently or willfully made a misrepresentation on the 
labor certification, and he invalidated the labor certification. USCIS will deny a visa petition if the 
petitioner submits evidence which contains false information. In general, a few errors or minor 
discrepancies are not reason to question the· credibility of an alien or an employer seeking 
immigration benefits. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. US, 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 2003). 
However, if a petition includes serious errors and discrepancies, and the petitioner fails to resolve 
those errors and discrepancies after an officer provides an opportunity to rebut or explain, then the 
inconsistencies will lead USCIS to conclude that the claims stated in the petition are not true. See 
Malter of Ho, I 9 I&N Dec. at 591. 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a material misrepresentation requires that the 
petitioner willfully make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of 
obtaining an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. Maller of Kai Hing Hui, 15 l&N Dec. 
288, 289-90 (BIA 1975). The term "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, as distinguished 
from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. See Matter of 
Healy and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). To be considered material, the 
6 
Malter ofZ-G- Corp. 
misrepresentation must be one which "tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the 
alien's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that he be 
excluded." Ma/ler of Ng, 17 l&N Dec. 536, 537 (BlA 1980). 
Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa 
petition proceedings, he or she must determine: I) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false 
representation to an authorized official of the United States government; 2) that the 
misrepresentation was willfully made; and, 3) that the fact misrepresented was material. See Maller 
of M-, 6 l&N Dec. 149 (BlA 1954); Maller of L-L-, 9 l&N Dec. 324 (BlA 1961 ); Kai Hing Hui, 
15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
Here, although the Petitioner indicated on the labor certification that the Beneficiary did not have an 
ownership interest in the Petitioner, the Petitioner's 2009 and 2016 tax returns identify the 
Beneficiary as the sole shareholder of the Petitioner. However, the labor certification was tiled in 
2011, and the Petitioner's 20 ll tax return does not show that Beneficiary was a shareholder of the 
Petitioner at that time. Therefore, the Petitioner's answer at Part C.9 on the ETA Form 9089 appears 
to have been correct. However, its certification that the job opportunity "has been and is clearly 
open to any qualified United States worker" was not correct and constitutes a false representation. A 
misrepresentation can be made to a government official in an oral interview, on the face of a written 
application or petition, or by submitting evidence containing false information. INS Genco Op. No. 
91-39, 1991 WL 1185150 (April 30, 1991). For the reasons discussed above, because the job 
opportunity is not bona fide, the Petitioner's false attestation on the labor certification constitutes a 
false representation on the face of a written petition. 
Second, we find that the Petitioner willfully made the misrepresentation. When given the 
opportunity to address the derogatory information the in the record regarding the bona fides of the 
job opportunity, the Petitioner reaffirmed its claims regarding the bona fides of the job opportunity. 
However, the Petitioner presumably knew of the roles of the Beneficiary in its organization, 
including his share ownership and management responsibilities. See Ma/ler of Silver Dragon 
Chinese Rest., 19 I&N Dec. 40 l, 404 (Comm'r 1986) (finding that "the officers and principals of a 
corporation are presumed to be aware and informed of the organization and staff of their 
enterprise"). 
Third, the evidence is material to the Beneficiary's eligibility. To be considered material, a false 
statement must be shown to have been predictably capable of affecting the decision of the decision­
making body. Kungys v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759 (1988). ·In the context of a visa petition, a 
misrepresented fact is material if the misrepresentation cut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to 
the eligibility criteria and that inquiry might well have resulted in the denial of the visa petition. See 
Ng, 17 I&N Dec. at 537. Here, a material issue in this case is whether a bonafide job offer exists. 
The Petitioner's misrepresentations cut off a potential line of inquiry regarding the bonafides of the 
job opportunity. 
.
Maller of Z-G- Corp. 
Based on the information referenced above, it is reasonable to question whether the Petitioner 
willfully misrepresented material facts regarding the bona fides of the job opportunity. We advised 
the Petitioner in our NOlO that the discrepancies, if unresolved, could lead us to conclude that the 
evidence regarding the job opportunity is not credible . ln light of the contradictory evidence and 
information described above , we conclude that the Petitioner ' s misrepresentation was material. The 
Petitioner misrepresented its attestation on the labor certification that "[t]he job opportunity has been 
and is clearly open to any qualified United States worker." Thus, we aftirin the Director's tinding 
that the Petitioner willfully misrepresented its attestation on the labor certification. 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(d) provides in pertinent part that: "After issuance labor 
certifications are subject to invalidation by the [USCIS] 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. " Based on 
the Petitioner's willful misrepresentation of a material fact, the ETA Form 9089 will remain 
invalidated. 
IV. THE BENEFICIARY'S EXPERIENCE 
The Director also denied the petition concluding, in part, that the Petitioner did not estab lish that the 
Beneficiary possessed the experience required by the labor certification as of the priority date. A 
beneficiary must meet all of the requirements of the offered position set forth on the labor 
certification by the priority date of the petition. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b)(l) , (12); Mafler (~l Wing 's Tea 
House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm 'r 1977). In this case , the labor certifica tion 
requires a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering 7 and two. years of engineering experience 
working with granite (cutting, designing , QC). 
The labor certification state s that the Beneficiary qualifies for the offer ed posttton based on 
experience as a production engineer with the Petitioner from March 18, 2008 , to the date the labor 
certification was filed on April 8, 20,11 ;8 experience as a production engineer with 
m Texas , from September 7,: 2006 , to March 17, 2008; and experience as an 
operations manager with in Mexico from June 5, 1998, to 
November 20, 2004. The labor certification indicates that the Beneficiar y worked 40 hours per 
week at each of these jobs. 
7 
The Beneficiary has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in industrial engineering. 
8 A labor certification employer cannot rely on experience that a foreign national gained with it, unless the experience was in 
a job substantially different than the offered position or the employer demonstrates the impracticality of training a U.S. 
worker for the offered position. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(3). For these purposes, a job is substantially different from an offered 
position if it requires performance of the same job duties less than 50 percent of the time. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(iX5Xii). On 
the labor certification at Part J .21., the Beneficiary attested that he did not gain qualifying experience with the Petitioner 
in a substantially comparable job. However, the job duties of the offered job and the job duties listed on the labor 
certification for the Beneficiary's job as a production engineer with the Petitioner from 2008 to 20 II are identical. 
8 
.
Maller ofZ-G- Corp. 
Evidence relating to qualifying experience must be in the form of a letter from a current or former 
employer and must include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
duties performed by the beneficiary. See 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(1)(3). 
The record contains an experience letter from president of dated 
November 20, 2004, stating she has known the: Beneficiary since June 5, 1998, and that "during 
these 6 years, he has proven to be an honest, hard-working and trustworthy person." The letter states 
that in the position of operations director, the Beneficiary gained experience in engineering with 
granite , i ncluding cutting, design and quality control. The record also contains the Beneficiary's 
paystub s from from January I 998 to December 2004, together with a translation of the 
paystub template. 9 
Further, the record contains a letter from president of date d 
September 3, 2007, offering the Beneficiary temporary employment as a production engineer. 10 
Another undated letter from states that he has known the Beneficiar y for "the last year 
and a half " and indicated that his employment has "benefitted the company." 
The Director stated that the evidence submitted by the Petitioner regarding the Beneficiar y's 
experience is unreliable based on inconsistencie s in the record the bonafide.\· of the j ob opportunity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director mistakenly disregarded the evidence in the record 
regarding the Beneficiary's experience. Wher e there are inconsisten cies in a record , a petitioner 
must resolv e the inconsistencies with independent , objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Malter<~( Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unreso lved mate rial inconsistencies may 
lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the 
requested immigration benefit. /d. In this case , the record is inconsisten t regarding the 
Beneficiary 's prior experience with the Petitioner , as his emplo yment agreements in 2009 indicate 
that that he was employed as an operations and sales manager, while the labor certific ation indicates 
that he was employed as a ·production engineer. Further, the Beneficiary's coJiegc transcripts 
indicate that he was 
attending classes at in Mexico from 1998 to 
2004, and that he obtained his bachelor's degree in industrial engineering in 2004. It is unclear how 
the Beneficiary worked as a full-time operations :director at and attended college at the same 
time. The inconsistencies· in the record have not been resolv ed with independent, objective 
evidence . !d. Finally, the letters from do not indicate his dates of 
employment or describe his duties as required by ·8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3). Therefore, the record docs 
not establish the Beneficiary 's two years of qualifying engineering expe rience working with granite 
(cutting, designing , QC). 
9 
The Director noted that the paystubs were not properly translated. Any document in a foreign language must be 
accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English 
language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language 
into English. !d. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language translation of each paystub, 
we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's claims. 
10 The record indicates that the Beneficiary's H-1 B nonimmigrant status with was granted with a 
validity period from October I, 2007, to September 28, 20 I 0. 
9 
Malter ofZ-G- Corp. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possessed the experience required by the labor 
certification as of the priority date. 
V. CONCLUSION 
In sum, the record does not establish the existence of a bona fide job opportunity. Further, the 
Petitioner willfully made a misrepresentation on the labor certification, and the labor certification 
will remain invalidated. The Petitioner has also not established that the Beneficiary possessed the 
experience required by the labor certification as of the priority date. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller ofZ-G- Corp., lD# 1242695 (AAO June 11, 2018) 
' 
10