remanded EB-3 Case: Administrative Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24745130 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 1, 2023 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an administrative assistant and requests classification 
of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference immigrant classification. 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 noncitizen for lawful permanent resident 
status based on a job offer requiring at least two years of training or experience. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the 
record did not establish that the Beneficiary had the required work experience for the position. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis . 1 
The Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) informing the Petitioner of "adverse 
information that [it] may not be aware of regarding the beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience" 
and indicating that: 
[i]t appears more likely that not, that the beneficiary does not possess the required 24 months 
of experience as an Administrative Assistant. It also appears that the beneficiary willfully 
misrepresented a material fact about the beneficiary's work experience in order to appear 
qualified for the job opportunity as presented on the labor certification in order to procure an 
immigrant visa. 
1 Subsequent to the return of this petition from the U.S. Consulate in Warsaw , Poland , the Petitioner filed a new skilled 
worker petition on the basis of the same labor certification and with the same December 10, 2005 priority date. The petition 
was approved in April 2022 and forwarded to the U.S. Consulat e in Warsaw, Poland in January 2023 . 
The NOIR did not, however, provide any additional discussion of the "adverse information" or basis 
for the Director's concerns. A NOIR must provide a petitioner "the opportunity to offer evidence in 
support of the petition ... and in opposition to the grounds alleged for revocation of the approval." 
8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b). 
The Director subsequently revoked the petition based, in part, on a 2021 statement given at the U.S. 
Consulate in Warsaw which, according to the Director, indicated that the Beneficiary: 1) did not have 
the required experience; 2) was an unpaid intern atl I and 3) actually interned for the 
employer from May 2003 until May 2005, not May 2001 until May 2003 as provided on the labor 
certification. 
As the Director included adverse information in the denial without giving the Petitioner an adequate 
opportunity to rebut, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(16)(i). The Director must issue a new NOIR specifying the facts and evidence supporting 
the proposed revocation grounds. The Director shall also consider the arguments and evidence 
submitted in response to the NOIR and on appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director mischaracterized the Beneficiary's 2021 statement, 
and we agree that the Beneficiary confirmed the dates of her internship as May 2001 through May 
2003, not 2003 through 2005. However, there are unresolved questions regarding the Beneficiary's 
claimed experience which should be addressed in the new NOIR. For example, given that the 
Beneficiary's unpaid internship began while she was still in high school, the Director should determine 
whether it constituted training rather than experience and whether the record contains sufficient, 
credible evidence to support her contention that she meets the experience requirement listed in the 
labor certification. 2 Further, it is unclear if the Beneficiary included her internship on the 
nonimmigrant visa applications she filed after 2001 and how she was able to intern on a foll-time basis 
while also attending school foll-time. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988) (requiring 
a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record by independent, objective evidence). 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2 While unpaid experience can constitute qualifying experience, there may be serious evidentiary problems, and an affidavit 
from the applicant alone is insufficient. Matter of B&B Residential Facility, 0l-lNA-146, (BAL CA Jul. 16, 2002). 
2