dismissed EB-3 Case: Skincare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-H-G-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 15. 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a skincare service, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an esthetician. It requests 
classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference immigrant category. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i). 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). 
This category allows a U.S. business 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 initially approved the petitiOn, but subsequently 
revoked the approval after concluding that the record did not establish. as required. the Beneficiary's 
possession of the experience required for the offered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it has novv established the 
Beneficiary's qualitications for the offered position. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration is generally a three-step process. First a U.S. employer must 
obtain an approved ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (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 the employer must file a Form I-140.1mmigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker. with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Sec section 204 of the Act. 
8 U.S.C. § 1154. Finally, if USCIS approves the immigrant visa petition, a foreign national may 
apply for an immigrant visa abroad or. if eligible, adjustment of status in the United States. Sec 
section 245 of the Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
After granting a petition. USC IS may revoke the petition. s approval "at any time .. for "good and 
sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1155. Good and sufficient cause exists to issue 
a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) where the record at the time of the notice's issuance. if 
unexplained or unrebutted. would have warranted the petition's denial. Matter of Estime. 19 I&N 
Dec. 450, 451 (BlA 1987). Similarly, revocation is proper if the record at the time of the decision. 
.
Maller ofG-H-G- , Inc. 
including any explanation or rebuttal evidence provided by a petitioner, warranted a petition' s 
denial. !d. at 452. 
If supported by the record. a director's realization that a petition was erroneously appro ved may 
justify revocation. Maller (?f'Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director revoked the petition 's approval because the record did not establish that the Benetici ary 
has the experience required by the terms of the labor ce1titication. A petitioner must establi sh a 
beneficiary's possession of all the experience specified on an accompan ying labor certificati on b y a 
petition 's priority date. 1 8 C .F.R. ~ 103.2(b)(l), (12); see also Mafler of' Wing's Tea House. 16 I&N 
Dec . 158. 159 (Acting Reg') Comm'r 1977): Mall er of' Katighak. 14 I&N Dec. 45. 49 (Reg 'l 
Comm'r 1971). 
In evaluating a beneficiary's qualitications, 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 the labor certification , nor impose additional requirem ents. See K.R.K. Irvine . Inc. , .. 
Landon. 699 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1983): Madany v. Smith. 696 f.2d 1008, 1012-1 3 (D .C. Cir. 
1983); Stewart Infra-Red Commissar y qf'Mass .. Inc. v. Coom ey. 661 F.2d I. 3 (1 st Cir. 1981 ). 
Here, the labor certification states that 24 months of experienc e as an esthetician is the minimum 
experience requirement of the offered position. On the labor ce1titication, the Beneficiar y attested that 
she had at least 24 months of full-time, qualifying experi ence with a prior emplo yer as follows: 
--
1 Job title I Employer nam~ ...... I Employer address Start date End date 
I Esthetician I I South Korea April 1, 1990 Januar v 30. 1998 --
A petitioner must support a benefici ary' s claimed qualif ying experience with a letter from an empl oyer. 
8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(g)( 1 ). The letter must provide the name , addre ss, and title of an employer, and a 
description of a beneficiary' s experience. ld Here, the Petitioner initially provid ed letters from 
individuals who claimed to have worked at with the Beneficiar y 
and attested to 
her experience. stated that she was a fanner accounting manager at 
and that. based on the duration of her own emplo yment there. she could confirm that the 
Beneficia!) ' also worked there from March I. 1993, to June 30. 1996. stated that she was 
the president of and attested that the Beneficiary vvorked there from Apri I I , 
1990, to January 30, 1998. 
However, as was noted by the Director in the NOIR, the Beneficiary 's claims on the labor certitication 
1 
In this case, the petition' s priority date is August 21 , 2015. This is the date the DOL accepted the labor certification 
application for processing. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(d) (explaining how to determine a petition' s priority date). 
2 
.
Matter ofG-H-G-. Inc. 
and the information in the letters are inconsistent with other information in the record regarding the 
Beneficiary's work history. Specifically, USCIS records show that the Beneficiary is also the 
beneficiary of at least two prior Forms I-360, Special Immigrant Worker Petition. tiled on her behalf by 
churches in the United States that sought to employ her as a religious worker. The most recent religious 
worker petition was filed on November 13, 2002, by C-P-K-P-C and contains infonnation regarding the 
Beneficiary's employment history that contradicts the information in this petition. 
A petitioning religious organization is required to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has at least two 
years of full-time experience as a religious worker. Section 101(a)(27)(C)(iii) of the Act. 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 (a)(27)(C)(iii). Accordingly, in its I-360 petition. C-P-K-P-C- provided a statement from the 
pastor of in . South Korea, who claimed that the Beneficiary worked at 
as a church evangelist from January l, 1993, to April 10, 1998. Moreover. in response to a 
request for evidence, C-P-K-P-C elaborated that the Beneticiary worked at as a church 
evangelist tor 45 hours each week and paid was paid $680 each month. According to C-P-K-P-C-. the 
Beneficiary's duties at included preparation and preaching biblical messages at selected 
worship services, assisting the pastor in preparation for worship services. visiting and spiritually 
assisting church members who could not attend church, leading bible studies. planning church retreats. 
and maintaining communication with church-sponsored missionaries. The assertion that the 
Beneficiary was a full-time paid employee of a church from January 1993 to April 1998 appears to be 
inconsistent with the assertion in this petition that she was a full-time esthetician from 1990 to 1998. 
On May 12, 2016, the Beneficiary tiled a Form 1-485, Application to Register Pennanent Residence or 
Adjust Status. and included a Fom1 G-325A. Biographic lnfom1ation. on which she was asked to list her 
last occupation abroad. The Beneficiary only listed her claimed work as an esthetician at 
from April 1990 to January 1998, even though C-P-K-P-C- had stated that the Beneficiary 
worked for as a church evangelist during the same period. 
In an interview conducted on April 17, 2017. the Beneficiary was questioned about her claimed 
employment at and According to the interview notes, the 
Beneficiary stated that she worked in skincare from April 1990 to January 1998, and that the business 
had one boss and one employee, the Beneficiary. This is not consistent with evidence in this I-140 
petition which includes letters from both the purported president and the claimed account manager of 
During the interview. the BeneJiciary also asse1ted that she was an unpaid 
choir member at from 1986 to 1998; however, this statement conflicts with C-P-K-P-C­
·s claim that the Beneficiary worked at as a church evangelist and that the church paid 
her at least $680 each month. We also note that the list of duties that C-P-K-P-C- claimed the 
Beneficiary performed as a church evangelist did not include work in the church choir. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary worked concurrently for 
and because she was a full-time volunteer at during weekends. mornings, 
and evenings when she was not at The Petitioner asserts that since the 
Beneficiary was an unpaid volunteer in the church choir. she has no evidence of remuneration fi·om the 
church. The Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary has no evidence of remuneration trom 
3 
.
Matter (?lG-H-G-. Inc. 
because her yearly wages were below the minimum amount required for tiling tax returns. 
The Petitioner refers to documents it provided relating to the minimum income required for filing tax 
returns 
in South Korea during the relevant period. 
The Petitioners assertions and evidence with respect to the Beneficiary's wages in South Korean are not 
sufficient to establish that 
she was exempt from filing taxes because they contradict other evidence in 
the record. Specifically, the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary received no wages from 
for her volunteer work in the choir conflicts with C-P-K-P-C- 's claim that the Beneficiar y was 
paid at least $680 each month for her work as a church evangelist. The Petitioner has not oftered an 
explanation and evidence to resolve these contradictory claims. For example. the Petitioner has not 
provided evidence regarding 
the Beneficiary's annual wages in South Korea from any entity that would 
demonstrate her annual income was so low as to be exempt from taxation. 
With regard to the contradictions between the Beneficiary's claim during her 2017 interview that 
had one "boss" and one employee (herself), and the letters from both the 
claimed president and an accounting manager , the Petitioner claims there is no such contradiction. 
Instead, the Petitioner asserts that the interviewing otlicer was not clear in his questioning and that the 
Beneficiary "was truthful in her response that there were hvo (2) persons" working at 
when the Beneficiary ceased to work there because the accounting manager had already lett the 
company. The Petitioner does not provide a statement from the Beneficiary claiming that she was 
confused during her interview or clarifying that there were sometime s three employees and sometimes 
two. Nor does the Petitioner provide documentary evidence to support the claimed employment of both 
the president and accounting manager. Accordingly, the Petitioner's assertion is not supported hy the 
record . Based on the contradictory evidence present in the record regarding the Beneficiar y's claimed 
employment abroad and the lack of COITOborating documentary evidence of her employment. the letters 
hom the claimed co-workers at do not establish that she has the minimum 
qualifying experience as an esthetician as required on the labor certification. 
Finally, the Petitioner contends on appeal that the officer who interviewed the Beneficiary in April 2017 
did not make himself clear when questioning her about her work experience. particularl y regardin g her 
work at the church. The record does not support this claim. As discussed. the Beneficiary 's work 
history on her Form G-325A is incomplete because she did not list her claimed emplo yment abroad for 
The record relating to the Beneficiar y's April 2017 interview reflects that the otticcr 
attempted to accurately and completely develop the Bencticiary·s employment history: however. the 
Beneficiary 's responses, such as her statement that she was an unpaid choir member at 
when C-P-K-P-C- had stated that she was a paid church evangelist, remained inconsistent with other 
evidence in the record. 
Given the inconsistencies regarding 
the Beneficiary's claimed employment experience at 
and the Petitioner 's appeal , unaccompanied by additional documentary 
evidence establishing the nature and duration of the Beneficiary's employment with her purp011ed 
employer in South Korea. is insufficient to establish the claimed experience as an esthetician . A 
petitioner must resolve incon sistencie s in the record with indep endent, objective evidence pointing 
4 
.
Maf/er ofG-H-G-, Inc. 
to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Here the Petitioner has 
not done so. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Based on the above conflicting information concerning the Beneficiary's employment history. we 
find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary has the 
qualifying experience required by the terms of the labor certification and to overcome the Director's 
decision revoking the petition· s approval. 2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller l~{G-H-G-. Inc. , ID# 9652568 (AAO Feh. 15, 2018) 
1 
Although not specifically noted by the Director, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is eligible lor 
classification as a skill ed worker. A skilled worker mu st possess at least two years of training or experience. Section 
203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act. Here, for the reasons discussed above , that the record does not establish the Beneficiary's 
claimed experience at or otherwise demons trate that she has two years of training or experience 
required for the classification requested.