remanded EB-3

remanded EB-3 Case: Accounting

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Accounting

Decision Summary

The appeal was remanded due to a procedural error. The Director sent the Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) to the Petitioner's old address, which USCIS records show was outdated. Because the Petitioner did not receive the notice in time to respond, the case was sent back for the NOIR to be properly issued to the current address, allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to reply.

Criteria Discussed

Beneficiary'S Qualifications Bona Fide Job Offer Notice Of Intent To Revoke (Noir)

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-E-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 25,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an engineering company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an accountant. It 
requests classification of the Beneficiary as a professional under the third preference immigrant 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. ยง 
1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to 
sponsor a professional with a baccalaureate degree for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition, but subsequently revoked 
the approval on the ground that the Petitioner did not respond to a request for additional evidence 
relating to the Beneficiary's qualifications and the bona .fides of the job offer. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the case to the Director 
for further consideration and the issuance of a new decision. 
On September 27, 2016, ten years after approving the petition, Director issued a notice of intent to 
revoke (NOIR) the approval of the petition. The NOIR stated that the Beneficiary did not appear to 
have the requisite employment experience to qualify for the offered position under the terms of the 
labor certification, and that the job offer did not appear to be bonafide. 
The NOIR was mailed to the Petitioner at the address in Virginia, where it was located at the 
time the petition was filed and approved in 2006~ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) records show that the NOIR was returned as undeliverable on October 18,2016, and that an 
address change was recorded on 
October 26, 2016. It does not appear that the Director issued a new 
NOIR to the Petitioner's current address at this time. 
On November 15, 2016, the Director issued a decision denying the petition on the ground that the 
Petitioner did not respond to the request for additional evidence. Since the petition had previously 
been approved, the decision should have been a notice of revocation not a petition denial. The 
Director's decision did not mention a NOIR but instead stated that the Petitioner did not submit 
requested additional evidence. 
.
Matter of N-E-, Inc. 
USCIS records indicate that the decision was initially returned as undeliverable, but was mailed 
again to the Petitioner's current address in Virginia on November 23, 2016. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it did not receive the NOIR until November 28, 2016, the same 
day it received the Director's decision, and therefore was unable to respond to the NOIR. On appeal, 
the Petitioner submitted a copy of the NOIR it received, which is still addressed to the Petitioner's 
old address in Virginia, and bears a stamp indicating that it was at the Texas Service Center 
on November 22, 2016. The Petitioner also states that it moved from its old address in 
Virginia, to its new address in Virginia, in October 2009. 
Based on USCIS records and the Petitioner's testimony, it appears that USCIS had evidence of the 
Petitioner's new address by October 2016. The Director should have re-issued the NOIR to the 
Petitioner's current address in Virginia, and provided the Petitioner with an opportunity to 
. submit the requested documentation before issuing a decision. 
Due to the procedural issues discussed above, we will remand this case to the Director for further 
consideration. After reviewing the new evidence submitted on appeal, if the Director intends to 
revoke the approval of the petition, it should issue a new NOIR to the Petitioner at its current 
address. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ofN-E-, Inc., ID# 483816 (AAO July 25, 2017) 
2 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Draft your EB-3 petition with AAO precedents

MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.

Sign Up Free →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.