dismissed EB-3 Case: Religious Administration

MATTER OF P-C-R-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 19,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
v 
The Petitioner, a church, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an administrative assistant. It requests 
her classification as a skilled worker under the third-preference, immigrant category. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 202(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). 
This employment-based, "EB-3" category allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a foreign national with 
at least two years of training or experience for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
record did not establish the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum experience required for the 
offered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it has established the 
Beneficiary's possession of the required experience. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration usually follows a three-step process. First, an employer files a 
labor certification application with 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). DOL must certify that the United States lacks able, willing, 
qualified, and available workers for an offered position, and that employment of a foreign national will 
not hurt the wages and working conditions ofU.S. workers with similar jobs. ld. If DOL approves the 
labor certification application, the employer then files an immigrant visa petition with USCIS. See 
section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Finally, if USCIS approves a petition, the foreign national 
may 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. 
A petitioner must establish a beneficiary's possession of all the job requirements on an 
accompanying labor certification by a petition's priority date.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B). In 
1 
If accompanied by a labor certification, a petition's priority date is the date the DOL received the labor certification 
Matter of P-C-R-, Inc. 
evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, we must examine the job offer portion of a labor 
certification to determine the minimum requirements of an offered position. We may neither ignore 
a term of a labor certification, nor impose additional requirements. See, e.g. Madany v. Smith. 
696 F.2d 1008, 1012-13 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In this case, the labor certification states the minimum requirements of the offered position of church 
administrative assistant as 24 months of experience in the job offered. The Benefic~ary attested on 
the labor certification to her possession, by the petition's priority date, of about 31 months of full­
time, qualifying experience. The Beneficiary stated that a church in South Korea employed her in 
the offered position from 2000 to 2002. 
In support of the Beneficiary's claimed experience, the Petitioner submitted a letter on the stationery 
of the South Korean church. The letter, signed by the church's purported head pastor, supports the 
information on the labor certification. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A) (requiring a letter from an 
employer as evidence of a beneficiary's claimed experience). The Petitioner also submitted 
affidavits from two of the Beneficiary's purported, former co-workers at the South Korean church, 
attesting to her experience. 
However, as indicated in our notice of intent to dismiss (NOID)2, the Beneficiary's statements on a 
prior application for a U.S. visitor's visa cast doubt on her claimed experience. On her 2006 visa 
application, the Beneficiary identified her occupation as "[h]ousewife." Instructed to list her last two 
employers on a supplement to the application; she stated "[n]one." 
Also, with her 2016 application for adjustment of status, the Beneficiary submitted a Form G-325A, 
Biographic Information, listing her last occupation abroad as administrative assistant at an 
automotive company in South Korea from 2003 to 2006.3 Thus, the Beneficiary has indicated 
employment with two employers in South Korea during the six years immediately preceding her 
visitor's visa application (the automotive company listed on the Form G-325A and the church listed 
on the labor certification), but the application states that she had no current or prior employers. The 
application for processing. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
2 The Petitioner' asserts that, contrary to regulations, we did not afford it an opportunity to inspect derogatory 
information of record. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) (requiring USCJS to permit a petitioner to inspect a record of 
proceeding). The Petitioner contends that we should have sent it a copy of the Beneficiary's visa application form. The 
regulations, however, do not require us to provide a petitioner with copies of documents containing derogatory 
information. Rather, the regulations require us only to advise a petitioner of the adverse information and to offer it an 
opportunity to respond. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i); see, e.g., Ogbolumani v. Napolitano, 557 F.3d 729, 735 (7th Cir. 
2009) (holding that a NOlO satisfies the regulations if it provides enough information to allow a petitioner "to rebut the 
evidence"). Here, our NOlO sufficiently advised the Petitioner of the derogatory information in the Beneficiary's visa 
application and invited it to responc;l. 
3 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary omitted '"her employment at the automotive company from the labor 
certification because she did not gain experience there in the offered position. of church administrative assistant. 
2 
Matter of P-C-R-, Inc. 
discrepancies in the Beneficiary's employment history cast doubts on her claimed, qualifying 
experience. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve 
inconsistencies of record by independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
In addition, the 2016 affidavits from the Beneficiary's purported, former co-workers indicate that the 
South Korean church closed sometime after a co-worker's departure in 2004. The church's closure 
before the issuance of the head pastor's letter in 2015 casts additional doubt on the letter's 
authenticity and reliability. 
In response to our NOID, the Beneficiary asserts that she disclosed her employment at the church 
and the automotive company to a travel agent who prepared her visitor's visa application. But the 
Beneficiary indicates that the agent omitted the information from the visa application. More than 1 0 
years later, the Beneficiary states that she cannot locate the travel agency and does not remember the 
agent's name. The Petitioner also submits new affidavits from the Beneficiary's purported, former 
co-workers at the South Korean church. The co-workers state that they went to the church's last 
known site and discovered a different church operating there. They state that they were unable to 
learn when the prior church closed or the whereabouts of its former head pastor. 
The Petitioner's NOID response does not resolve the inconsistencies in the Beneficiary's claimed, 
qualifying experience. The Beneficiary blames the travel agent for omitting her employment history 
on the visa application form. But the record indicates that the Beneficiary signed the form, 
certifying the truth and accuracy of its answers to the best of her knowledge. She also does not 
explain why she did not correct her employment history on the form at her following visa interview 
with a U.S. consulate officer. · 
The Beneficiary's purported, former co-workers state that they could not learn when the South 
Korean church closed or locate its former head pastor. But the record lacks evidence of further 
attempts by the Beneficiary, or the Petitioner to obtain information about the church's closing, such 
as requesting records from the government or the church now using the property. The Petitioner also 
did not sufficiently explain why it could not comply with the RFE's request for tax records of the 
Beneficiary's claimed employment. The Petitioner stated only that such records "cannot be obtained 
by [the Beneficiary] at this time." 
Citing federal court and Board of Immigration Appeals decisions, the Petitioner asserts that our 
doubts about the authenticity and reliability of the letter from the South Korean church stem from 
"speculation and conjecture." The Petitioner notes that the record does not establish the church's 
closure before the letter's issuance in 2015. The Petitioner argues that the church could have closed 
during the eight-month period after the letter's issuance and before the submission of the affidavits 
from the Benefi_ciary's former co-workers. 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion and its cited cases, however, substantial and.probative evidence 
supports our questioning ofthe authenticity and reliability of the church's letter. The Beneficiary's 
former co-workers state that the church closed sometime after 2004. We logically infer from that 
3 
Matter of P-C-R-, Inc. 
evidence that the church may have closed before the letter's issuance in 2015. See Matter of D-R-, 
25 I&N Dec. 445, 454 (BIA 2011) (citation omitted) (explaining that an "inference is not a suspicion 
or a guess. It is a reasoned, logical decision to conclude that a disputed fact exists on the basis of 
another fact that is known to exist"). Thus, unexplained and unrebutted, the possibility of the 
church's closure before the letter's issuance casts substantial doubts on the letter's authenticity and 
the reliability of its contents. The record therefore supports our doubts about the letter's authenticity 
and reliability. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's claimed, qualifying 
experience for the offered position. We will therefore affirm the Director's decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not establish the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum experience required for 
the offered position. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-C-R-, Inc., ID# 445855 (AAO JULY 19, 20 17) 
4