dismissed EB-3 Case: Retail Management

L 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF A-P-, INC. DATE: JULY 14,2016 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I -140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a night shift manager at the gas 
station/convenience store that it operates. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled 
worker under the third preference immigrant category. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This classification allows a U.S. 
employer to sponsor a foreign worker for a position that requires at least 2 years of training or 
expenence. 
On May 5, 2015, about 6 years after granting the petition, the Director,, Texas Service Center, 
revoked its approval. The Director concluded that the record atthe time of the petition's approval 
did not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying experience or the Petitioner's ability to pay the 
proffered wage. The Director also invalidated the accompanying labor certification, finding that the 
Beneficiary willfully misrepresented his qualifying experience on the document. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner asserts that the record does not support the 
Director's conclusions. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
A. USC IS Determines the Eligibility of the Beneficiary and the Petitioner 
Employment-based immigration is generally a three-step process. First, an employer must obtain an 
approved 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, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
must approve an immigrant visa petition. See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Finally, the 
foreign national must 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. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-, Inc. 
By approving the accompanying ETA Form 9089, Application for Employment Certification (labor 
certification) in the instant case, the DOL certified that there are insufficient U.S. workers who are able, 
willing, qualified, and available for the offered position of night shift manager. Section 
212(a)(5)(A)(i)(l) of the Act. The DOL also certified that the employment of a foreign national in the 
position will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of domestic workers similarly 
employed. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(II). 
The issues before us include: 1) whether the Beneficiary meets the requirements of the offered position 
certified by the DOL; 2) whether the Beneficiary materially misrepresented his qualifying experience 
on the accompanying labor certification; and 3) whether 
the Petitioner and the Beneficiary are otherwise 
qualified for the requested classification. See section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204~5. 
B. The Director Properly Issued the Notice oflntent to Revoke the Petition 
USCIS may revoke a 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 
approved in error may justify its revocation. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 589 (BIA 1988). 
A director properly issues a notice of intent to revoke if the record at the time of the notice's 
issuance would have warranted a 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's issuance, including 
any rebuttal evidence or argument submitted by a petitioner, warranted a petition's denial. !d. at 
452. 
In the instant case, the Director's notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) of December 17, 2014 informed 
the Petitioner of discrepancies in the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience. An August 13, 
2007, letter from in Pakistan documented the 
company's purported employment of the Beneficiary as a manager for more than 3 years from July 
1992 to May 1996. But the NOIR noted that a prior petition for the Beneficiary contained a March 
16, 2001, letter from stating its employment of him during the same period in a different 
position: "client service executive." 1 
The labor certification accompanying the prior petition also stated employment of the 
Beneficiary as a client service executive. But the NOIR also noted that the labor certification stated 
his employment from June 1996 to December 1997, a different period than indicated in the 
company's letters and on the labor certification accompanying the instant petition. The prior labor 
certification also stated that the Beneficiary performed different job duties at. than stated in the 
company_'s August 13, 2007, letter or on the instant labor certification. 
1 The record indicates that, on March 19, 2004, the operator of another gas station/convenience store filed the prior 
petition on behalf of the Beneficiary. On May 2, 2007, we affirmed the denial of that petition. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-, Inc. 
In addition, the record lacked evidence of the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered 
wage. Although the record contained evidence ofthe Petitioner's ability to pay in 2007, the NOIR 
noted that the record lacked required evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay from the petition's 
priority date ofFebruary 21, 2008 onward. 
A petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for a requested benefit. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. It must also resolve inconsistencies of record by independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Because the record at the time of 
the petition's approval did not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying experience or the Petitioner's 
ability to pay, the Director properly issued the notice. 
C. The Record Does Not Establish the Beneficiary's Qualifying Experience 
A petitioner must establish a beneficiary's possession of all the education, training, and experience 
specified on an accompanying labor certification by a petition's priority date. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 
103.2(b)(l), (12); see also Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l 
Comm'r 1977); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, we must examine the job offer portion of an 
accompanying labor certification to determine the minimum requirements of an offered position. 
We may neither ignore a term of the labor certification, nor impose additional requirements. K.R.K. 
Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1983); Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-
13; Stewart Infra-Red Commissary of Mass., Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1981). 
In the instant case, the accompanying labor certification states the minimum requirements of the 
offered position of night shift manager as 2 years of experience in the job offered or "in 
management." As previously indicated, the petition's priority date is February 
21, 2008, the date the 
DOL accepted the labor certification application for processing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
Excluding his employment by the Petitioner in the offered position, the Beneficiary attested on the 
accompanying labor certification to more than 5 years of full-time, qualifying experience.2 In 
addition to more than 3 years as a manager with in Pakistan, the Beneficiary stated that he 
worked for about 2 years as a manager with _ _ in the United States, 
from January 2006 until the petition's priority date ofFebruary21, 2008. 
A petitioner must support a Beneficiary's. claimed qualifying experience with letters from 
employers. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A). The letters must include the names, addresses, and titles of 
the employers, and descriptions of a beneficiary's experience. !d. 
2 A petitioner cannot generally rely on experience that a beneficiary gained with it, unless a beneficiary gained the 
experience in a substantially incomparable position or unless it demonstrates the infeasibility of training a worker for the 
position. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(3). 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-, Inc. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner attempted to resolve the discrepancies in the Beneficiary's 
claimed position, duties, and dates of employment with . by submitting a new letter from the 
company. The January 10, 2015, letter stated that promoted the Beneficiary to manager- the 
position indicated in the company's August 13, 2007, letter and on the instant labor certification -
shortly before he left the company in May 1996. From July 1992 to March 1996, the new letter 
stated that employed him as a client service executive, the position indicated in the company 's 
March 16, 200 I, letter and on the prior labor certification. 
The new letter does not resolve all the discrepancies in the Beneficiary's claimed experience 
with the company. The new letter does not explain why the company did not list all of the 
Beneficiary's purported positions with it in its earlier letters. The new letter also does not explain 
why the prior labor certification stated employment of the Beneficiary during a different 
period. 
Even if we credited the contents of the new letter, it would establish the Beneficiary 's 
possession of only about 2 months of qualifying experience in management, from March 1996 to 
May 1996. The record therefore does not establish the Beneficiary's possession of at least 2 years of 
qualifying experience with as specified on the accompanying labor certification by the 
petition's priority date. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from as evidence of the Beneficiary's 
purported qualifying experience with that company. The January 12, 2015, letter states that 
employed the Beneficiary as a manager from January 2006 to December 2008 and 
describes his duties. 
The January 12, 2015, letter complies with 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A). But the letter is unreliable 
evidence of the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience with The letter 
identifies its signatory as the company's "CEO [Chief Executive Officer]." Online government 
records identify another person as the company's CEO from at least 2007 until its dissolution in 
2015.3 See ·Ga. Sec'y of State, Corps. Div., at https://ecorp.sos.ga.gov/BusinessSearch/ 
BusinessFilings (accessed May 26, 2016). The record does not explain the discrepancy in the 
employer's title. 
Also, the signatory of the letter is the Petitioner 's manager, who signed the instant 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, and the accompanying labor certification on 
behalf of the Petitioner. Even if the Petitioner's manager· was truly CEO, the letter 
would not constitute independent, objective evidence of the Beneficiary's qualifying experience, as 
the Petitioner's manager has a stake in the outcome of these proceedings. See Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 
591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies by "independent, objective" evidence). 
3 The online records do not allow access to the company's annual corporate registration forms submitted before 2007. 
The record therefore does not Identify the company 's CEO before that date. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-, Inc. 
As additional proof of the Beneficiary's qualifying experience with the Petitioner 
submitted copies of his federal income tax returns and IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, 
for2007 and 2008. The Beneficiary's tax materials indicate that paid him $9600 in 
both of those years. 
The Beneficiary's tax materials do not establish his purported qualifying experience with 
The Petitioner must establish the Beneficiary's possession of at least 2 years, or 24 
months, of qualifying experience by the petition' s priority date of February 21, 2008. See Wing 's 
Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. at 159. The Beneficiary attested on the accompanying labor certification to 
about 2 years of experience with from January 2006 until the petition's priority date 
of February 21, 2008. The Beneficiary's tax materials cover only about a 14-month period before 
the priority date, from January 1, 2007 until February 21, 2008. Thus, the materials do not establish 
the Beneficiary's possession of at least 2 years of qualifying experience as specified by the 
accompanying labor certification by the petition's priority date. 
The Petitioner did not submit evidence of the Beneficiary's purported employment by 
_ in 2006. Wage records obtained by USCIS from the Georgia Department of Labor indicate 
the Beneficiary's employment by only in the fourth quarter of 2006, not from 
January of that year as he attested on the accompanying labor certification. 
Also, the annual wage amoun.ts stated in the tax materials suggest that the Beneficiary did not work 
for in 2007 and 2008 on a full-time basis, or that he worked for the company for 
only portions of those years. As indicated in the Director's decision, the state of Georgia began 
2007 with a minimum wage rate of $5.15 per hour. See Ga. Dep't of Labor, Minimum Wage, at 
https://dol.georgia.gov/minimum-wage (accessed May 26, 2015). If the Beneficiary worked 40 
hours per week for _ . as indicated on the accompanying labor certification, he should 
have made at least $10,712 per year.4 The wage amounts suggest that the Beneficiary worked for 
in 2007 and 2008 on only a part-time .basis and that he therefore lacks 24 months of 
full-time, qualifying experience as required for the offered position. See Matter of Cable Televisions 
Labs., Inc., 2012-PER-00449, 2014 WL 5478115, *1 (BALCA Oct. 23, 2014) (finding that, for labor 
certification purposes, 16 months of part-time employment equates to only 8 months of qualifying 
experience). 
The Petitioner asserts that the annual wage amounts listed in the Beneficiary's tax materials do not 
necessarily indicate his employment in 2007 and 2008 on a part-time basis. The Petitioner states 
that "there are plenty of ways through which an employer can compensate an employee aside from 
wages reported to tax authorities." 
4 
Online government information indicates that Georgia's minimum wage increased to $5.85 per hour on J~ly 24, 2007, 
and to $6.55 an hour on July 24, 2008. See Ga. Dep't of Labor, Minimum Wage, at https://dol.georgia .gov/minimum­
wage (accessed May 26, 20 16). Thus, if the Beneficiary worked 40 hours per week as he claims, he should have made 
more in both 2007 and 2008 than $10,712 per year, an amount based on a wage rate of only $5.15 per hour. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P- , Inc. 
The Petitioner's assertion may be true. But, as previously indicated, the Petitioner bears the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. See section 291 of the Act. If the Beneficiary received additional, 
non-wage compensation from . the record lacks evidence of it. Also, as previously 
discussed, the Beneficiary's 2007 and 2008 tax materials cover only a 14-month period before the 
petition's priority date. The materials therefore do not demonstrate the required 2 years of 
qualifying experience. The record therefore does not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying 
experience with 
The prior petitioner for the Beneficiary submitted evidence that he gained qualifying management 
experience in the United States from June 1996 to December 2000. The record contains letters from 
indicating its employment of the Beneficiary as a manager from January 1998 to 
December 2000.5 Letters also indicate his employment by as a shift manager 
from June 1996 to December 1997. 
But neither the letters from nor state the titles of the purported 
employers who signed the documents. Because the letters do not comply with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A), they do not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying experience. 
Also, the Beneficiary did not list or as a former employer on the 
labor certification that accompanies the instant petition. The absence of the employers from the 
labor certification casts doubt on the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience with those 
companies. See Matter of Leung, 16 I&N Dec. 12, 14-15 (Distr. Dir. 1976), disapp'd of on other 
grounds by Matter of Lam, 16 I&N Dec. 432, 434 (BIA 1978) (finding testimony of qualifying 
experience by an applicant for adjustment of status to be not credible where the applicant did not 
state the employment on the underlying labor certification). The record therefore contains 
insufficient evidence of the Beneficiary 's purported qualifying experience from June 1996 to 
December 2000. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director "raise[ d] a complete straw man" by finding discrepancies in 
the Beneficiary's claimed employment experiences from June 1996 to December 2000. The 
Director found that the Georgia DOL records did not confirm the Beneficiary's claimed employment 
during that period. Because the Petitioner relies on qualifying experience that the Beneficiary 
gained before 1996 and after 2000, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's experience during that 
period is irrelevant. 
The Director based his finding on the results of an investigation by a USCIS officer. The 
investigation found that Georgia DOL records contain no evidence of the Beneficiary's employment 
by and from June 6, 1996 to December 2000. 
5 The prior labor certification identifies the Beneficiary 's purported, former employer as " But the 
company 's letters identify the business as ' . The company 's legal name appears to be 
See Ga. Dep't of State, Corps. Div., at https://ecorp.sos.ga.gov/BusinessSearch {accessed May 26, 2016). We will 
therefore refer to the business as 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-, Inc. 
But the Georgia DOL materials of record do not support the investigation's results. The materials 
indicate that the prior petitioner did not employ the Beneficiary in 2003 or 2004. USCIS also later 
acquired Georgia DOL materials indicating that neither nor 
employed the Beneficiary from 2001 to 2011. The Georgia DOL materials do not contradict the 
Beneficiary's claims that he worked for and· from 1996 to 2000. 
Therefore, contrary to the Director's findings, the Georgia DOL records do not cast doubt on the 
Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience from 1996 to 2000. We will therefore withdraw that 
portion of the Director's decision. 
But we note that the Petitioner, on the instant Form 1-140, and the Beneficiary, on his most recent 
Form 1-485, Application for Adjustment of Status, stated the Beneficiary's entry date into the United 
States as October 1996. If the Beneficiary did not enter the United States until October 1996, then 
he could not have begun working for as he claims, in June 1996. This 
discrepancy casts additional doubt on the Beneficiary's claimed experience with 
See Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (stating that doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may lead to 
a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence of record). 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying experience for 
the offered position as specified on the accompanying labor certification by the petition's priority 
date. We will therefore affirm the Director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
D. The Record Supports the Director's Misrepresentation Finding 
A petition for a skilled worker must be accompanied by a valid, individual labor certification, an 
application for Schedule A designation, or documentation of a beneficiary's qualifications for a 
shortage occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3(i). USCIS may invalidate a labor certification after its 
issuance upon a finding of "fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact involving the labor 
certification application." 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(d). 
Fraud "consist[ s] of false representations of a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity and 
with intent to deceive the other party." Ortiz-Bouchet v. US. Att'y Gen., 714 F.3d 1353, 1356 (11th 
Cir. 2013) (quoting Matter ofG-G-, 7 I&N Dec. 161, 164 (BIA 1956). "The representation must 
also be believed and acted upon by the party deceived to his disadvantage." !d. A willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact includes the same elements as fraud, except that a willful 
misrepresentation does not require an intent to deceive or proof of a successful deception. !d. at 
1356-57(citing Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 290 (BIA 1975)). 
In the instant case, the Director invalidated the accompanying labor certification, finding that the 
Beneficiary willfully misrepresented his qualifying experience on the document. The Beneficiary 
attested on the labor certification to about 2 years of qualifying experience with in 
the United States from January 2006 to February 21, 2008. The Beneficiary alsoattested to more 
than 3 years of qualifying experience with in Pakistan from July 1992 to May 1996. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-, Inc. 
As previously discussed, the record does not support the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying 
experience on the labor certification. The record contains discrepancies regarding the Beneficiary's 
claimed position, duties, and dates of employment with in Pakistan. Also, the Petitioner 
submitted insufficient evidence to establish his possession of at least 2 years of qualifying 
experience with in the United States. 
The record suggests the Beneficiary's willful misrepresentation of his experience with On the 
prior labor certification, the Beneficiary described his job duties as a client service executive with 
an advertising company, as "correspond[ing] with clients concerning advertisements and 
. brochures," meeting "with publisher to discuss issues," and "us[ing] MS Word for all 
correspondence, review[ing] layouts and approv[ing] formats." 
But, on the labor certification accompanying the instant petition, the Beneficiary stated his position 
with as "manager." The description of his job duties as manager included: "manag[ing] 
company operations;" "monitor[ing], supervis[ing], and train[ing] employees;" and "assign[ing] job 
duties and work schedule for the employees." The new position . title and the inclusion of 
management tasks in his job duties with suggest that the Beneficiary, in an effort to qualify for 
the offered position of night shift manager, willfully misrepresented his experience with the 
company on the instant labor certification. 
The record indicates that the Beneficiary might have gained sufficient qualifying experience with 
and from June 1996 to December 2000. As previously discussed, 
the Georgia DOL record_s do not cast doubt on the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience wi-th 
those two employers. 
But the Beneficiary did not state qualifying experience ·with and on 
the labor certification accompanying the instant petition. In adjudicating the labor certification 
application, the DOL therefore would not have considered that experience. See Matter of Bencor 
Corp. of Am. Found. Specialists, 2012-PER-00192, 2014 WL 1639393, *5 (BALCA Apr. 21, 2014) 
(affirming the DOL's denial of an ETA Form 9089 that omitted some of a foreign national's 
qualifying experience). · 
The only other qualifying experience listed by the Beneficiary on the accompanying labor 
certification is his experience with . But, as previously discussed, the record does not 
indicate that the Beneficiary's experience with amounts to at least 2 years. Thus, the 
DOL would have had to consider a portion of the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience with 
The record contains substantial evidence that the Beneficiary willfully misrepresented his 
experience with Therefore, substantial evidence indicates that the willful misrepresentation 
on the labor certification was material. 
The record contains substantial evidence that the Beneficiary willfully misrepresented a material fact 
on the accompanying labor certification. We will therefore affirm the Director's finding and the 
labor certification's invalidation. 
8 
Matter of A-P-, Inc. 
E. The Record Does Not Establish the Petitioner's Ability to Pay the Proffered Wage 
A petitioner must demonstrate its ability to pay a proffered wage from a petition's priority date until 
a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Evidence of ability to pay 
must include copies of annual reports, federal income tax returns, or audited financial statements. 
!d. 
In the instant case, the accompanying labor certification states the proffered wage of the offered 
position of night shift manager as $42,411 per year. As previously indicated, the petition's priority 
date is February 21, 2008. 
At the time of the petition's approval on February 2, 2009, the record contained required evidence of 
the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage in 2007. But the record lacked required evidence of 
the Petitioner's ability to pay in 2008 or thereafter. 
A "PNL Summary" stated that the Petitioner generated $132,879.50 in net profit during the first 6 
months of 2008. But the summary did not indicate that it had been audited. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(g)(2), the summary therefore did not constitute required evidence of the Petitioner's ability to 
pay in 2008. 
The Director's NOIR requested the Petitioner to "submit updated evidence of [its] ability to pay the 
proffered wage in the years 2008 to 2013." Evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay after the 
petition's approval date of February 2, 2009 is irrelevant to our review of the revocation. See 
Estime, 19 I&N Dec. at 452 (holding that a petition's revocation is valid if the evidence would have 
warranted its denial at the time of its approval). But the NOIR asked the Petitioner to submit 
.additional evidence of its ability to pay at least in 2008, the year of the petition's priority date. 
In response to the Director's NOIR, the Petitioner did not submit additional evidence of its ability to 
pay. On appeal, the Petitioner submits copies of its federal income tax returns for 2011, 2012, and 
2013. 
As indicated above, evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage in 2011, 2012, and 
2013 is irrelevant in reviewing the revocation of the petition. Evidence of the Petitioner's financial 
status after the February 2, 2009, date of initial approval does not indicate whether the petition's 
denial would have been warranted. 
A petitioner must demonstrate its ability to pay "at the time the priority date is established and 
continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
Because the record lacked evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay at the time of the petition's 
February 21, 2008, priority date and continuing until the petition's initial approval on February 2, 
2009, the record did not establish the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage. 
9 
Matter of A-P-, Inc. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record at the time of the petition's approval did not establish the 
Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the petition's priority date onward. 
We will therefore affirm the Director's decision and dismiss the appeal for this additional reason. 
II. CONCLUSION 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, the record on appeal supports the Director's conclusions. At 
the time of the petition's approval, the record did not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying 
experience for the offered position or the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. Substantial 
evidence also indicated that the Beneficiary willfully misrepresented a material fact on the 
accompanying labor certification, justifying its invalidation. We will therefore affirm the Director's 
decision and dismiss the appeal. 
The petition's approval will remain revoked for the above stated reasons, with each considered an 
independent and alternate ground of revocation. As in visa petition proceedings, a petitioner in 
revocation proceedings bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 
291 of the Act; Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 590. Here, the instant Petitioner did not meet that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-P-, Inc., ID# 17697 (AAO July 14, 2016) 
10