dismissed EB-3 Case: Tailoring

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19960502 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 31, 2022 
The Petitioner, a custom tailoring business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a master tailor. It 
requests skilled worker classification for the Beneficiary 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 employment-based "EB-3" immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer 
to sponsor a noncitizen for lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that requires at least 
two years of training or experience. 
The Director of the California Service Center initially approved the petition . However, the Director 
subsequently revoked the approval based on a determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
its intent to employ the Beneficiary in accordance with the terms of the labor certification. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested 
benefit. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer obtains an 
approved labor certification (ETA Form 9089) from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 
212(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § l 182(a)(5) . By approving the labor certification, the DOL certifies 
that there are insufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available for the offered 
position and that employing a noncitizen in the position will not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II) of the 
Act. Second , the employer files an immigrant visa petition (Form 1-140) with U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, if USCIS 
approves the petition, the noncitizen 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. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § 115 5, provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security may "for 
good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition ." By regulation this revocation authority 
is delegated to any USCIS officer who is authorized to approve an immigrant visa petition "when the 
necessity for the revocation comes to the attention of [USeIS]." 8 e.F.R. § 205.2(a). users must 
give the petitioner notice of its intent to revoke the prior approval of the petition and the opportunity 
to submit evidence in opposition thereto, before proceeding with written notice of revocation. See 
8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) and (c). A notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) "is not properly issued unless there 
is 'good and sufficient cause' and the notice includes a specific statement not only of the facts 
underlying the proposed action, but also of the supporting evidence." Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 
450, 451 (BIA 1987) (providing that "[i]n determining what is 'good and sufficient cause' for the 
issuance of a notice of intention to revoke, we ask whether the evidence of record at the time the notice 
was issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would have warranted a denial based on the petitioner's 
failure to meet his or her burden of proof''). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established its intent to employ the Beneficiary as a 
master tailor in accordance with the terms of the certified labor certification. 
The Petitioner initially filed a labor certification with the DOL for another beneficiary 
(original beneficiary) as a master tailor, which was approved. 1 The labor 
certification was signed by ______ the claimed owner for the Petitioner. Later, the 
Petitioner substituted the labor certification from the original beneficiary to the Beneficiary and filed 
the employment petition seeking to employ him as a master tailor. 2 Both were signed by 
I l another claimed owner for the Petitioner. 
The labor certification describes the job duties as "[t]o make tailored garments such as suits, coats & 
other dress clothing for men and women. To make patterns and outline patterns for cutting. To work 
on overlock, single needle, singe & double stitch machines." In addition, the Petitioner indicated that 
the job of master tailor required at least four years of experience. Further, the Petitioner listed the 
Beneficiary's prior employment at I in !Armenia, as a master tailor from 
March 1990 to November 1995. The Director approved the employment petition based on the 
evidence in the record. However, the Director later issued a NOIR based on inconsistencies and 
derogatory information, discussed below. 
users officers conducted a site visit at the Petitioner's address and spoke to who 
stated the following: 
1 California State Corporation Search records show that the Petitioning entity at the location specified on the labor 
certification is suspended, not in good standing, and has been inactive smce July 16, 1993. 
https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business (last accessed August 30, 2022). Where there is no active business, no 
bona fide job offer exists, and the request that a foreign worker be allowed to fill the position listed in the petition has 
become moot. Additionally, even if the appeal could be otherwise sustained, the petition's approval would be subject to 
automatic revocation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 205.1 (a)(iii)(D) which sets forth that an approval is subject to automatic 
revocation without notice upon termination of the employer's business in an employment-based preference case. The 
Petitioner must address this issue in any further filings. 
2 The substitution of beneficiaries was formerly permitted by the DOL at the time of filing this petition. On May 17, 2007, 
the DOL issued a final rule prohibiting the substitution of beneficiaries on labor ce1tifications effective July 16, 2007. See 
72 Fed. Reg. 27904 (codified at 20 C.F.R. § 656). 
2 
• The Petitioner is a family-owned business and his sister,I is the owner, and 
he is responsible for the daily operation of the business including immigration paperwork. 
• He filed a petition for another beneficiary (Beneficiary X) as a master tailor six months prior 
to the site visit through Attorney 
• There were no other pending petitions. 
• He has filed at least five or six petitions with Attorney! I over the past few years. 3 
• He did not know the names of the individuals and their job titles because all paperwork is 
sent to Attorney! I 
• All of the beneficiaries were from Armenia and were for the position of master tailor. 
• Only one of the beneficiaries for whom he petitioned ever reported for the position and that 
person worked for only one day and never returned. 
• No master tailor was working at the time, and he assumes responsibility when the job is 
vacant. 
• The last time the Petitioner employed a master tailor was two years ago because the company 
was in the process of downsizing. 
• There is a job position for only Beneficiary X and no others. 
In addition, both the Beneficiary and I I were requested to appear for an adjustment of 
status interview. However, only the Beneficiary appeared. At that time, the Beneficiary stated that 
he has not worked since coming to the United States, and he has never worked for the Petitioner. 
Furthermore, the Beneficiary indicated that he is being supported by his family. Moreover, the 
Beneficiary presented a job offer letter purportedly from I I claiming that the master 
tailor osition was still open and current. However, the Director determined that the alleged signature 
of was different than the other signatures contained in the record. Further, attempts 
to contact andl I were unsuccessful; response to phone calls placed 
to the Petitioner claimed that "left on a business trip this morning" and 
I l'was not in." 
Finally, the Director noted in the NOIR that the original beneficiary of the labor certification was in 
fact the Beneficiary's mother. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner submitted a letter from I who claimed that"[ w ]e 
still have an open position for [the Beneficiary] as a master tailor." In revoking the approval of the 
petition, the Director concluded that the letter did not address the derogatory information in the NOIR, 
and the Petitioner did not establish its intent to employ to employ the Beneficiary in accordance with 
the terms of the labor certification. 
3 If a petitioner has filed immigrant visa petitions on behalf of multiple beneficiaries, the petitioner must establish that it 
has had the ability to pay the proffered wage to each beneficiary. See Patel v. Johnson, 2 F.Supp.3d 108, 124 (D. Mass. 
2014) (affirming our revocation of a petition approval where the petitioner did not demonstrate its ability to pay the 
combined proffered wages of multiple beneficiaries). Petitions filed on behalf of other beneficiaries are considered from 
the priority date of each petition (not including any year prior to the priority date of the petition being reviewed on appeal) 
until the present or until the other beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. Petitions that have been withdrawn or 
denied are not considered in this analysis. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts: 
The owner of the business also responsible for the daily operation of the business has 
submitted a rebuttal under oath that the job offer is still available []. The documentation 
in the record also supports that business is still viable, willing and able to hire this 
beneficiary. The departments [sic] contntions [sic] are vague, unrelated and no 
opportunity is allowed to refute the investigation report. 
The Petitioner makes no other arguments or submits any other documentation in support of the appeal. 
Although the Petitioner references the job offer letter claiming that the job offer is still available, the 
letter does not address any of the derogatory information outlined in the Director's NOIR and 
revocation. Specifically, the Petitioner did not rebut the statements by the 
Beneficiary's lack of intent to work for the Petitioner, the inconsistent signatures of ____ 
the failure to appear and inability to contact and The Petitioner 
must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies 
may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the 
requested immigration benefit. Id. 
In general, a few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an 
individual or an employer seeking immigration benefits. See Spencer Enterprises Inc. v. US., 345 
F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if a petition includes serious errors and discrepancies, and 
the petitioner fails to resolve those errors and discrepancies after an officer provides an opportunity to 
rebut or explain, then the inconsistencies will lead USCIS to conclude that the facts stated in the 
petition are not true. See Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Because the Petitioner has not overcome the inconsistencies and the derogatory information in the 
record, the Petitioner has not demonstrated its intent to employ the Beneficiary in accordance with the 
terms and conditions of the labor certification. See Matter of Izdebska, 12 I&N Dec. 54 (Reg. Comm'r 
1966) (upholding the denial of an employment-based immigrant visa where the evidence did not 
establish that the petitioner actually desired and intended to employ the beneficiary pursuant to the 
terms of the labor certification). A labor certification is valid only for the particular job opportunity, 
beneficiary, and area of intended employment identified on the labor certification. See Matter of 
Sunoco Energy Development Co., 17 I&N Dec. 283 (Reg'l Comm'r 1979) and 20 C.F.R. 
§ 656.30( C )(1 ). 
Here, the labor certification states that the position is for a foll-time master tailor. While the Petitioner 
submitted one letter claiming that they intended to hire the Beneficiary, the USCIS site visit revealed 
that the Petitioner had "downsized," and only had one position for a master tailor at the time of the 
Beneficiary's adjustment interview and the company intended to onboard the other individual that it 
sponsored. The Petitioner has not resolved this critical inconsistency in whether they had a foll-time 
position available for the Beneficiary in accordance with the terms of the labor certification. 4 
4 We acknowledge that a petition represents an offer offuture employment. A petitioner need not employ a beneficiary 
in an offered position until he or she obtains lawful permanent resident status. See also section 221 (a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1201(a) (authorizing consular officers to issue immigrant visas; a beneficiary of a petition can remain outside the United 
States until granted an immigrant visa). 
4 
Furthermore, while the Petitioner claims that the Director's decision was vague, and it was not allowed 
an opportunity to rebut the information, we disagree. As discussed above, the Director properly issued 
a NOIR in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a) detailing the inconsistencies and 
derogatory information. In issuing the NOIR, the Director afforded the Petitioner an opportunity to 
offer evidence in support of the petition and in opposition to the grounds for revocation of the approval. 
In the revocation, the Director addressed the Petitioner's job offer letter and correctly determined that 
the evidence did not overcome the derogatory information contained in the NOIR. Even on appeal, 
the Petitioner again does not address or offer evidence to overcome any of the inconsistencies in the 
record. 5 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established its intent to employ the Beneficiary as a master tailor in accordance 
with the terms of the certified labor certification. Accordingly, it has not established that the proffered 
position in the labor certification is, or was, a bona fide offer of employment. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 We also note that the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has the required work experience. A petition for 
skilled worker classification must be accompanied by evidence that the beneficiary meets any educational, training, 
experience, or other requirements of the labor certification. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(D). The labor certification in this 
case does not require any education or training to qualify for the job but does require at least four years of experience. As 
provided in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A), any requirements of training or experience for skilled workers 
must be supported by letters from trainers or employers giving the name, address, and title of the trainer or employer, and 
a description of the training received or the experience. Although the Petitioner indicated on the labor certification that 
the Beneficiary was employed as a master tailor for over five years with in Armenia, the Petitioner 
did not submit any letters froml I In addition, the record reflects that the Beneficiary was previously 
petitioned by I for H-1 B nonimmigrant classification (specialty occupation) as an economist. In support 
of that petition, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary "received a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Economics. 
He has worked as an Economist in Armenia ever since receiving his degree." The Beneficiary's prior employment as an 
economist contradicts the labor certification's prior employment claim as a master tailor. Further, the labor certification 
indicated that the Beneficiary only received a diploma from theOSeconda1y School inl I Armenia in 1981 while 
the H-1 B petition reflected that the Beneficia1y also received a bachelor of science degree from the 
Institute in 1986. In any further pursuit of this petition, the Petitioner must resolve these additional inconsistencies in the 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
5