dismissed EB-3 Case: Tailoring

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19386018 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 22, 2022 
The Petitioner, a drapery dry cleaning and laundry service, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an 
alteration tailor. It requests classification of the Beneficiary under the third-preference, immigrant 
category as a skilled worker. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based category allows a U.S. business to sponsor a 
foreign national for lawful permanent resident status based on a job offer requiring at least two years 
of training or experience. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary possessed the minimum experience required for the offered position. 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary willfully misrepresented a material fact, the Beneficiary's 
qualifying work experience for the offered position on the labor certification. We dismissed a 
subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 
2012); Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss 
the motion. 
I. MOTION TO REQUIREMENTS 
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 
The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established that our decision to dismiss the appeal 
was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. The Petitioner must specify the factual 
and legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in our initial decision. 
In our previous decision, we explained that the record did not support a finding that the Beneficiary, 
more likely than not, possessed the minimum qualification required for the offered position as required 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3). We considered all evidence of the Beneficiary's qualifying experience 
in the record, including the certificate of employment, letters from her previous foreign employer, 
letters from her former coworkers, and USCIS records. However, we concluded that the evidence was 
insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary possessed the required 24 months of experience in the 
offered position of alteration tailor. 
We noted, as did the Director before us, the inconsistencies in the record of the Beneficiary's work 
experience, cast doubt on the authenticity of the letters submitted by the Petitioner. Specifically, the 
employment letters and labor certificate indicate the Beneficiary was employed from March 5, 2010, 
to September 20, 2014; however, the Beneficiary submitted a nonimmigrant visa application in July 
2014 listing her present occupation as "not employed/I am a housewife of two young children," and 
listed no previous employment. Further, in a Form G-325A, Biographic Information, that she signed 
on October 20, 2017, the Beneficiary listed no employment in the last five years. The Petitioner must 
resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, at 591-92. Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to 
reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested 
immigration benefit. Probative evidence beyond a letter or affidavit may be considered when 
submitted to resolve inconsistencies or discrepancies in the record. Id. 
On motion, the Petitioner provides a similar explanation for the inconsistencies as was provided with 
the appeal, the Beneficiary's employment history responses on the nonimmigrant visa application and 
the G-325A "were of unintentional oversight". The Petitioner argues we erred in our decision by not 
applying the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof when weighing the letters supporting 
the Beneficiary's employment experience. We disagree with the Petitioner. 
Our prior decision and the Director's decision provided detailed discussions of the inconsistencies in 
the record of the Beneficiary's employment history and the reasons the employment letters from the 
Beneficiary's former employer and coworkers are not considered probative evidence of the 
Beneficiary's qualifying work experience. Our decision also explains the reasons that this secondary 
evidence was insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof, and that independent, objective 
evidence is needed to resolve the inconsistencies. Our decision goes further to point out that the letters 
also do not provide a description of the Beneficiary's job duties and a statement that the employment 
was full time. We noted that the Beneficiary's explanation that she does not have income tax returns 
because she was not required to file returns due to her low salary of $400 per week, casts doubt on the 
employment being full time. We also explained that further independent evidence, such as the 
Beneficiary's payroll records, time sheets, bank statements, or other contemporaneous evidence, could 
have been submitted to corroborate her claimed employment. We noted that a petitioner may submit 
a letter or affidavit that contains hearsay or biased information, but such factors will affect the weight 
to be accorded the evidence in an administrative proceeding. See Matter of D-R-, 25 l&N Dec. 445, 
461 (BIA 2011) (citations omitted). 
2 
The Petitioner further argues on motion that we erred in affirming the Director's finding of willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact against the Beneficiary. The Petitioner argues in the brief on 
motion, "[w]ithout concrete proof to establish any fraudulent activity, the proposition of willful 
misrepresentation should not be just thrown around as it puts unwarranted burden on the whole 
atmosphere of the case." The Petitioner then indicates that the Beneficiary "admitted that her 
responses to her previous employment on the nonimmigrant application were of unintentional 
oversight." We disagree with the Petitioner's arguments. 
The Director's decision and our decision explain in detail the elements for a finding of willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact, which we note differs from a finding of fraud. See 8 USCIS 
Policy Manual J.2 https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Also, as detailed above, the decisions further 
explain the Beneficiary's claimed work experience indicated on the labor certification is inconsistent 
with the Beneficiary's responses on her nonimmigrant visa application and her Form G-325A. Prior 
to this petition, the Beneficiary has never claimed any work experience on multiple filings before 
multiple agencies. She contends that this failure to disclose what is now the basis for her eligibility 
was an "unintentional oversight" despite attesting under penalty of perjury that the information on the 
forms was true and correct. Although provided with multiple opportunities to cure this deficiency, the 
beneficiary has been unable to provide compelling evidence demonstrating she has not made a willful 
misrepresentation. The evidence on the record supports the Beneficiary misrepresented her work 
experience on the labor certification and that such misrepresentation was material to qualifying for the 
labor certification. 
The Petitioner has not shown on motion that our determination concerning the Beneficiary's work 
experience for the offered position "was based on an incorrect application of law or policy" or that our 
"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). Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to reconsider the 
matter. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3