dismissed EB-3 Case: Tailoring

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 14913983 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 27, 2021 
The Petitioner , a 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 , "EB-3" 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 was eligible for classification as a skilled worker. Due to inconsistencies 
in the record, the Director found that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to 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 in listing her claimed 
employment on the labor certification. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361; Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N 
Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this 
matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. EMPLOYMENT BASED IMMIGRATION 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. To permanently fill a position 
in the United States with a foreign worker , a prospective employer must first obtain certification from 
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a)(5). DOL 
approval signifies that insufficient U.S. workers are able, willing, qualified, and available for a position . 
Id. Labor certification also indicates that the employment of a foreign national will not harm wages and 
working conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. Id. 
If DOL approves a position , an employer must next submit the certified labor application with an 
immigrant visa petition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Among other things , USCIS considers whether a beneficiary meets the 
requirements of a certified position and a requested immigrant visa classification. IfUSCIS approves 
the petition, a foreign national may finally 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. 
II. THE BENEFICIARY'S EXPERIENCE 
The accompanying labor certification was filed on April 28, 2017. 1 The labor certification states that 
the offered position requires 24 months of experience in the offered job of alteration tailor, and no 
alternate experience is accepted. The duties and required skills for the offered position are stated as: 
Alter clothing to fit individual customers; and repair defective garment parts using 
tailor tools and/or commercial sewing machines and hand stitching. 
On the labor certification, the Petitioner asserts that the Bene
1
iciary gtined experience as an alteration 
specialist from March 5, 2010 to September 20, 2014 with Cleaners in South Korea. The 
Petitioner did not submit evidence in support of the Beneficiary's experience with the petition. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), requesting evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
met the minimum requirements for the offered position as of the priority date. In response to the RFE, 
the Petitioner provided a certificate of employment and a letter of experience from the owner ot1 I 
Dry Cleaners, with English translations. The certificate states that the Beneficiary was employed as 
an alteration tailor from March 5, 2010 to September 20, 2014 and lists her job duties as "alteration 
tailoring and cleaning garments." The letter from the owner also states that the Beneficiary worked 
from March 5, 2010 to September 20, 2014 as an alteration tailor, but does not list any specific job 
duties. 
Upon review of the Petitioner's response, the Director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) the 
petition. The Director identified inconsistencies in the Beneficiary's employment history as claimed 
in the labor certification and supporting evidence, and as listed on other records. Specifically, in a 
nonimmigrant visa application submitted in July 2014, the Beneficiary listed 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 lists no employment in the last five years. The Director also informed the Petitioner that 
the Beneficiary's attestation on the labor certification of her employment with I I Cleaners 
appeared to be a willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary, inadvertently and through 
counsel, neglected to include her previous employment on her nonimmigrant visa application. The 
Petitioner submitted statements from both the Beneficiary and her former counsel, stating that the error 
in omitting her employment history on her nonimmigrant visa application was not intentional, as the 
Beneficiary was applying for a derivative nonimmigrant visa category with her spouse as the primary 
visa applicant, and both believed her employment history to be unimportant. 
1 The "priority date" of a petition is the date the underlying labor certification is filed with the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5( d). The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the petition have been satisfied as of the 
priority date. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted another statement, with English translation, from the owner ofl I Dry 
Cleaners, listing the Beneficiary's dates of employment as an alteration tailor from March 5, 2010 to 
September 20, 2014. The Petitioner submitted two notarized statements, with English translations, 
titled "Verification of Facts." The verifications are from two individuals stating that they were former 
co-workers of the Beneficiary while she worked atl IDry Cleaners from March 5, 2010 to 
September 20, 2014. The Petitioner also provided a business registration certificate, with English 
translation, dated August 18, 2014, stating thatl I Dry Cleaners is a registered personal dry 
cleaning service in South Korea, incorporated on October 1, 2000. 
The Director found that the statements did not constitute independent, objective and corroborative 
evidence. He concluded that the Petitioner did not submit secondary evidence of the Beneficiary's 
qualifying employment, such as pay statements, time sheets, bank statements, or other 
contemporaneous evidence verifying her claimed employment wit~ I Dry Cleaners, or establish 
that this evidence was unavailable. He also noted that the Petitioner's response to the NOID did not 
explain how or why the Beneficiary omitted her employment history on Form G-325A, which was 
signed only three years after the claimed end date of her employment with! I Dry Cleaners. The 
Director determined that the Beneficiary willfully made a false representation of her experience as an 
alteration tailor on the labor certification, and that the false representation is material to the requested 
benefit. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief from counsel and no additional evidence in support of the 
Beneficiary's claimed experience. In its brief: the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in refusing 
to give any weight and consideration to the secondary evidence it submitted, specifically the 
employment certificate and letters from I I Dry Cleaners, and the statements from the 
Beneficiary's former co-workers. 
The Petitioner's counsel states that the Director denied the petition "despite overwhelming genuine 
secondary evidence submitted in support of [the Beneficiary's] previous employment." We disagree. 
In adjudicating immigration benefit requests, USCIS regularly reviews affidavits, testimonials, and 
letters from both laypersons and recognized experts. To be probative, a document must generally 
provide: (1) the nature of the affiant's relationship, if any, to the affected party; (2) the basis of the 
affiant's knowledge; and (3) a specific - rather than merely conclusory - statement of the asserted 
facts based on the affiant's personal knowledge. Matter of Chin, 14 I&N Dec. 150, 152 (BIA 1972); 
see also 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(2)(i) (requiring affidavits in lieu of unavailable required evidence from 
"persons who are not parties to the petition who have direct personal knowledge of the event and 
circumstances"); Matter o_f Kwan, 14 I&N Dec. 175, 176-77 (BIA 1972); Iyamba v. INS, 244 F.3d 
606,608 (8th Cir. 2001 ); Dabaase v. INS, 627 F.2d 117, 119 (8th Cir. 1980). 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 I&N Dec. 445, 
461 (BIA 2011) ( citations omitted). Probative evidence beyond a letter or affidavit may be considered 
when submitted to resolve inconsistencies or discrepancies in the record. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Ultimately, to determine whether a petitioner has established eligibility 
for a requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence, USCIS must examine each piece of 
3 
evidence - both individually and within the context of the entire record - for relevance, probative value, 
and credibility. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Here, the Petitioner relies only on testimonial evidence from her former employer to establish the 
Beneficiary's claimed employment experience, without providing independent , objective evidence in 
support of this testimony. Neither letter from the former employer includes a description of the 
Beneficiary's job duties. Further, the statements from the Beneficiary 's former co-workers do not 
describe the Beneficiary's duties, explain how the co-workers have knowledge of her employment, or 
include any documents, such as copies of national identification cards, to verify the identity of these 
individuals . Additionally , none of the documents in the record demonstrate that the Beneficiary's 
employment was full-time. Although the accompanying labor certification states that the Beneficiary 
was employed withl I Cleaners as an alteration specialist for 40 hours per week, in response to 
the NOID counsel for the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's salary was approximately $400 per 
week and not subject to reporting or income tax payments . This claim casts doubt about the full-time 
nature of the Beneficiary's employment. 
Based on conflicting information from her nonimmigrant application and Form G-325A, further 
independent evidence is required . The record does not include the Beneficiary's income or payroll 
records to corroborate her claimed employment. Nor does the Petitioner assert that these records are 
unavailable for any reason. Although the Beneficiary asserts that her employment history was omitted 
on the visa application because she was not the primary applicant, the application was submitted on a 
date when the Beneficiary claims to be employed, casting further doubt on her assertion . The 
Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies 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. 
As the inconsistencies in the record have not been resolved, the Petitioner has not established with 
independent, objective evidence that the Beneficiary possesses the required 24 months of experience 
in the offered position, as required by the labor certification . Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
III. WILFULL MISREPRESENTATION OF A MATERIAL FACT 
To find a willful and material misrepresentat ion of fact an immigration officer must detem1ine that ( 1) 
the petitioner or beneficiary made a false representation to an authorized official of the U.S. 
government, (2) the misrepresentation was willfully made, and (3) the fact misrepresented was 
material. See Matter ofM- , 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 
289 (BIA 1975). The term "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, as distinguished from 
accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. See Matter of Healy and 
Goodchild , 17 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). A "mater ial" misrepresenta tion is one that "tends to shut 
off a line of inquiry relevant to the alien's eligibility." Matter of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 
1980). 
Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa petition 
proceedings , they must determine : 1) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false representation to 
an authorized official of the United States government; 2) that the misrepresentation was willfully 
4 
made; and, 3) that the fact misrepresented was material. See Matter of M-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 
1954); Matter of L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
Here, the Director found that the Beneficiary willfully misrepresented her qualifying experience on 
the labor certification . 
As noted above, the Beneficiary stated on her nonimmigrant visa application completed in July 2014 
that she was not currently or previously employed. However, on the labor certification filed on her 
behalf, she claimed employment experience as an alteration specialist until September 2014. She also 
listed no prior employment on Form G-325A signed in October 2017. The misrepresentation was 
material to whether she qualified for the labor certification . The infonnation submitted does not 
resolve the inconsistency in her claimed experience . As such, substantial evidence supports the 
Beneficiary 's willful misrepresentation of her experience on the labor certification. Therefore, we 
affirm the Director's finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact against the Beneficiary. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets the minimum experience requirements 
as set forth on the accompanying labor certification . The record includes umesolved inconsistencies 
with respect to the Beneficiary's claimed employment history. It is the Petitioner 's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5