dismissed EB-3 Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10817463 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for a Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 2, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an assistant manager of a gas station/retail store. 
The company requests her classification under the third-preference, immigrant classification for 
skilled workers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition, but subsequently revoked the 
approval on the grounds that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary had the requisite work 
experience to meet the terms of the labor certification and to qualify for skilled worker classification. 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary misrepresented her experience. The Petitioner filed an 
appeal, which we dismissed on the same grounds. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will 
dismiss the combined motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must demonstrate that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider must be 
supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement 
of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security policy. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
To qualify for classification as a skilled worker a beneficiary must have at least two years of training 
or experience. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(I)(3)(ii)(B). A beneficiary must also meet the specific 
educational, training, experience, or other requirements of the labor certification. Id. All requirements 
must be met by the petition's priority date, 1 which in this case is April 16, 2007. See Matter of Wing's 
Tea House, 16 l&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'I Comm'r 1977). 
The accompanying labor certification states the minimum requirements of the offered position of 
assistant manager as a U.S. (or foreign equivalent) high school diploma, and two years of experience 
in the job offered. On the labor certification, and with the supporting experience letter, the Beneficiary 
attested that she gained more than three years of full-time, qualifying experience in Pakistan, working 
as an assistant manager at a retai I store from September 2011 through October 2014. 
After approving the petition, the Director noted discrepancies between the labor certification and the 
Beneficiary's previous application for a U.S. nonimmigrant visitor's visa. Her October 2014 visa 
application stated her "Primary Occupation" as "homemaker" and indicated that she had "No" prior 
employment. The Director revoked the petition's approval after finding that the record lacked 
sufficient reliable evidence of the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum experience required for 
the offered position or the requested visa classification, and found misrepresentation. 
In our prior decision, we addressed the evidence in the record and found that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum experience required for the offered 
position or the requested visa classification. We also found that substantial evidence in the record 
supported that the Beneficiary willfully misrepresented her experience on the labor certification. 
The Beneficiary's explanation that her spouse completed her online visa application and did not 
consider her employment history relevant to the application was found to be unconvincing. The record 
did not support counsel's assertion that Pakistani culture identifies a wife's primary responsibility as 
her family's home (and her primary occupation to be "homemaker"). 
An updated experience letter from the Beneficiary's previous employer did not include independent 
evidence to corroborate the letter's contents, and the Beneficiary's 2011 offer letter could not be 
verified as authentic. The previous employer's monthly "muster rools" (listing employee names, dates 
of employment, and wages) were found to be unreliable, as the record did not establish that these 
records were prepared contemporaneously with the Beneficiary's employment or were part of the 
employer's routine record keeping. 
The primary issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts 
that overcome our prior decision. The Petitioner has supplemented the record with additional 
documentation on motion. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary used her income from her purported employment 
in Pakistan to pay for medical treatment, and submits medical records and invoices from 2013. The 
Petitioner also submits a letter from a bank and savings passbook, asserting that the Beneficiary kept 
a savings account from March 2009 to December 2014. 2 
1 The priority date of a petition is the date the underlying labor certification is filed with the Department of Labor, which 
in this case is April 22, 2016. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
2 In its brief dated March 4, 2020, the Petitioner requests an additional 45 days to obtain supplemental evidence. The 
regulation pertaining to motions does not permit the submission of materials after filing in order to meet the applicable 
2 
The Petitioner does not assert that this evidence was previously unavailable or explain why it did not 
submit this evidence previously. If the petitioner had wanted this evidence to be considered, it should 
have submitted the documents in response to the Director's Notice of Intent to Revoke or on appeal. 
The medical records and invoices do not demonstrate the source of the income used to pay these 
amounts. Similarly, the passbook does not reflect the source of income for any deposits. Further, the 
savings passbook reflects no activity from December 2009 until February 2014, and reflects only 
minimal deposit amounts in 2014. Therefore, the evidence submitted on motion is of little evidentiary 
value in supporting the Beneficiary's purported employment from 2011 to 2014. 
Further, the record includes multiple inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's name.3 The names 
on the medical records and invoices, and on the bank letter are inconsistent with each other, and do 
not match the Beneficiary's name as shown in the record.4 Upon further examination, the 2011 offer 
letter from the Beneficiary's purported previous employer misspells her first name and uses her 
married name before the date of her marriage, casting further doubt on its authenticity.5 Additionally, 
we note that the previously submitted "muster rools" identify the Beneficiary by different names at 
different times during her purported employment, casting further doubt that these records were 
prepared contemporaneously with the Beneficiary's employment. 6 The Petitioner must resolve any 
material inconsistencies in the record by competent, objective evidence. Unresolved material 
inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted 
in support of the requested immigration benefit. See Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's evidence also reflects on the reliability of the 
petitioner's remaining evidence. See id. 
In our previous decision, we specifically notified the Petitioner that with any future filings in this 
matter, the Petitioner must submit a complete copy of its federal income tax return for 2016 and 
disclose any family relationships between the Beneficiary and the company's owners, officers, or 
incorporators as of the application's filing. See Matter of Modular Container Sys., Inc., 89-INA-228, 
slip op. at *9 (BALCA July 16, 1991) (en bane) (holding that a foreign national's relationship to a 
petitioning corporation's director, officer, or employee may indicate the unavailability of the offered 
job to U.S. workers). The Petitioner did not submit this evidence on motion and does not address this 
issue in its brief. 7 
In view of the evidentiary deficiencies discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established on motion that the Beneficiary gained at least two years of qualifying experience by the 
requirements. Motions must meet the applicable requirement when filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5; compare 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(2)(vi i). 
3 The Beneficiary's name as listed on the labor certification and the petition isl I. The record reflects 
that the Beneficiary's maiden name is I I and the date of her mar .... ri-ag_e_i ..... sl-----,-1-2~012. The Beneficiary 
does not list any other names used or aliases in the record. 
4 The family names on the medical records and invoices include._! __ _.I and._l __ _.I The family name on the bank 
letter isL..._ ____ ---r-~------, 
5 The letter is addressed to 
6 The "muster rools" list an._e_m....,pl-oy_e_,e~~~~~~:J.__ _ _.N (in 2011, before her marriage) and an employe~ 
Don 2013, after her marriage). .__ __ ____. 
7 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14) provides that the failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material 
line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the benefit request. 
3 
priority date of April 22, 2016, as required to meet the terms of the labor certification and to be eligible 
for classification as a skilled worker. As set forth above, the record includes unresolved, significant 
inconsistencies between the Beneficiary's claimed experience and her prior nonimmigrant visa 
application, and, therefore, supports the finding of willful misrepresentation against the Beneficiary, 
which the Petitioner has not overcome on motion. Therefore, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner does not assert that that our previous decision with regard to the Beneficiary's 
experience was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, as required for a motion to 
reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration of our previous decision, 
nor established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4