remanded EB-3 Case: Baking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 25, 2023 In Re: 20106798 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Other Worker 
The Petitioner, a coffee and pastry retailer, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a baker. It requests 
classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker 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 category allows a U.S. business to sponsor a foreign national with at least two years of training 
or experience for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Nebraska Service Center Director revoked the approval of the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Workers (1-140) and invalidated the underlying ETA Form 750 (labor certification), concluding 
that there was no bona fide job available at the time the Petitioner filed the labor certification and the 
record showed willful misrepresentation in labor certification. On appeal, the Beneficiary argues that 
a bona fide job offer existed at the time the Petitioner ti led the labor certification and the 1-140 petition. 
The AAO reviews the questions in this matter de nova. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 
537 n.2 (AAO 2015). The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we will remand the case to the 
Director for the issuance of a new decision. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer obtains an 
approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5). Second, the employer files an immigrant visa petition 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 foreign national 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. § 1155, 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 [USCIS]." 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a). USCIS 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 l&N Dec. 450, 451 
(BIA 1987). Vex Matter of Estime, "[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." Id. 
11. PROCEDURAL HI STORY 
In this case, DOL accepted the accompanying labor certification for filing on June 18, 2004. The labor 
certification states that the offered position requires eight years of grade school education, four years 
of high school education, and two years of experience in the position.1 The Petitioner filed an 1-140 
petition utilizing this labor certification on October 20, 2006, and the Director approved it on 
November 30, 2010. On November 16, 2017, USCIS officers conducted a site visit at the location 
identified as the Beneficiary's workplace. After the site visit, the Director issued the Petitioner a notice 
of intent to revoke (NOIR) the 1-140 petition's approval. In the NOIR, the Director informed the 
Petitioner that during the site visit: 
The manager on duty confirmed that the beneficiary had been employed at that location 
as a baker since 2010. After touring the location, it was discovered that no baking was 
done at that location. The manager confirmed that cookies, croissants, and eggs were 
pre-made, frozen and only heated up on site. The manager also stated that bagels, 
donuts, and muffins were made and baked by ~-------------~ then delivered to the store in the morning and confirmed this process had been in place 
since early 2009. The manager also confirmed that no cakes, donuts, pies, cookies or 
puddings were made or decorated at that location. 
The Director determined that, "as no baking facilities exist onsite," the Beneficiary was not performing 
the duties listed on the labor certification and in the Petitioner's letter. The Director further concluded 
that the Beneficiary's duties were unskilled ones. 
In the NOIR response, Counsel explained that the Beneficiary had applied for and received approval 
of a Form 1-485 Supplement J, Confirmation of a Bona Fide Job Offer or Request for Job Portability 
Under INA Section 20-4(j) (Supplement J). The response further noted that the Beneficiary ported to 
his new employer, a retailer of pastries, donuts, and coffee, and that the Beneficiary had been working 
for the new employer since December 17, 2017. For ease of reference, we refer to the new employer 
as J&M. 2 Counsel provided photos of the new worksite as well as a letter from the new employer's 
1 The labor certification listed the job duties to be performed as "prepares and bakes cakes, donuts, pies, and puddings 
according to recipe, measuring and mixing ingredients to form dough, to shape it for cookies, pies, and donuts, pouring 
fillings into pies and donuts shells, decorates cakes and pastiies" (all-capitalized letters in original removed). 
2 The record reflects an inconsistenc in the new em lo er's name. The new em lo er identified itself in a letter dated 
January 16, 2018, as,..___________ -.-- ________ _.' while the Supplement J states that 
the new employer is~------~-~ 
2 
president, I I attesting to the Beneficiary performing the same duties as described in the 
original labor certification. 3 The NOIR response did not address the Director's determination that, 
prior to porting, the Beneficiary was not performing the duties listed on the labor certification. 
The Director revoked the petition and invalidated the labor certification in August 2021, providing 
notice to both the Petitioner and the Beneficiary. 4 The revocation decision stated that the NOIR 
response had not established that a bona fide position as described on the labor certification had been 
available at the time of filing. The Director further concluded that the 1-140 petition was approved in 
error and as such, the Beneficiary was not eligible to port a new offer of employment. Finally, the 
Director invalidated the labor certification, stating that the record showed willful misrepresentation 
concerning the information listed therein. 
The Beneficiary filed the instant appeal, arguing that at the time of filing the labor certification, the 
Petitioner's worksite contained baking facilities. The Beneficiary also argues that in 2004, when the 
labor certification was filed, and in 2006, when the 1-140 petition was filed, the Petitioner prepared 
and baked the bakery products onsite. Accordingly, the Beneficiary argues that a bona fide job offer 
existed at the time of filing the labor certification. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that, "as no baking facilities exist onsite," the Beneficiary was not performing 
the duties listed on the labor certification and in the Petitioner's letter. The Director further concluded 
that the Beneficiary's duties were unskilled ones. However, whether baking facilities existed on site 
may be irrelevant, as the job offer here is a future one. When considering this issue, the Director may 
wish to examine whether sufficient evidence to support the finding that the job duties at the time of 
filing were accurate. 
In addition, the Director did not identify which entity or individual misrepresented information in the 
labor certification concerning the job offered. Therefore, when considering how the lack of baking 
facilities onsite relates to the future nature of the job offer and whether the job duties at the time of 
filing were accurate, the Director may wish to further explore and clarify the misrepresentation finding. 
When considering these issues, the Director may take into account the below deficiencies and 
inconsistencies related to the Petitioner's ability to pay and the Beneficiary's experience. 
A. The Petitioner's Ability to Pay 
3 It appears thatl !signed the labor certification and Form 1-140 as the Petitioner's authorized representative, and 
also serves as the new employer's authorized representative. In addition, it appears that the same attorney represents the 
Petitioner, J&M, and the Beneficiary. 
4 The Director determined that the Beneficiary had met the requirements for standing, as explained in Matter of V-S-G, 
Inc., Adopted Decision 2107-06 (AAO Nov. 11, 2017), and therefore granted the Beneficiary eligibility to receive notices 
and to participate in the proceedings. The Beneficiary filed a Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence 
or Adjust Status (Form 1-485) on November 5, 2007. While that Form 1-485 was pending, the Beneficiary then submitted 
asecond Form 1-485 on November 21, 2011. On March 21, 2014, he withdrew the second Form 1-485 in favor of pursuing 
the originally filed Form 1-485. The originally filed Form 1-1485 remains pending. 
3 
The Petitioned I, submitted the labor certification and 1-140 
petition signed by the Petitioner's president, I • I The initial filing included I !Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for S Corporation (1120S), for the years 
2004 and 2005, as well as two IRS Form 941s, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax returns, one for the 
first quarter of 2005 and one for the second quarter of 2006. In the heading of the quarterly tax return 
for 2005, the Petitioner appears to have crossed out the year 2005 and replaced it with "2006." There 
is no indication from the record whether the quarterly return was actually filed with or acce ted by the 
IRS and to which year it pertains. All of the tax forms were signed by president The 
Petitioner also provided an October 2006 letter from~--------------~
I I stating that the permanent employment position of baker 
continued to exist for the Beneficiary. 5 
As evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay, the Petitioner provided I ltax returns for tax years 
2004 through 2009. In addition, the Petitioner provided a sporadic sampling of the Beneficiary's pay 
stubs and Forms W-2 from the years 2005 through 2010. The below table summarizes the evidence 
regarding the Petitioner's ability to pay from 2004, the year of the priority date through to 2010, the 
year USCIS approved the 1-140 petition. The evidence of record, as reflected in the below table, is 
inconsistent concerning the Petitioner's name as well as what entity paid the Beneficiary during the 
pendency of the Form 1-140 petition. Therefore, the Director may wish to determine whether the 
Petitioner has established its ability to pay the Beneficiary. 
Year Beneficiary's W-2 Beneficiary's Paystubs 1120S Tax Return 6 
2004 None None $134,272 
2005 One J&M W-2 Paystubs from I I 
I I 
Paystubs from I I 
$162,559 
2006 One J&M W-2 and One 
I IW-2 
$271,643 
2007 One J&M W-2 None $20,998 
2008 One J&M W-2 None I $107,342 
2009 One J&M W-2 None I 129,436 
2010 None Paystubs froml Ifrom 
January 2010 to September 
2010 
None 
According to the evidence provided, the Beneficiary received a W-2 from J&M beginning in 2006 and 
paystubs, if provided, from.__ _____ __. In the Petitioner's RFE response, Counsel stated that 
"[i]n 2007, the Petitioner's business was under construction and was unable to operate its business for 
part of the relevant year." While Counsel's explanation is relevant for the purposes of the ability to 
pay analysis, this does not address the change in the entity that paid the Beneficiary. Moreover, we 
cannot ascertain what Counsel means by "under construction," and whether this refers to construction 
of the physical store location, or from a corporate or business structure perspective, or otherwise. 
5 The footer portion of this letter contains what appears to be a file path from the root of drive C: and the name ·l~-~
I I It is not apparent to whom ~------' refers. The appearance of this name casts doubt upon who the 
letter is from and whether the letter is accurate as it pertains to the Beneficiary of this petition. 
6 These figures are found on line 21 of the 1120S, corresponding to "ordinary business income (loss)." 
7 The Petitioner 
I 
submitted a series of the Beneficiary's paystubs with the name l 
I 
land several that contain the name 
4 
Based upon the evidence in the record, we cannot conclude that the same entity employed the 
Beneficiary between 2004 and 2010.8 
The Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's 2005 Petitioner-issued paystubs and a 2005 J&M-issued 
W-2. The evidence for 2006 involves Petitioner-issued paystubs and two W-2s, one issued by the 
Petitioner, and one issued by J&M. The Petitioner has not explained why the name of the issuing 
entity for the Beneficiary's paystubs does not align with the name of the issuing entity for his W-2s. 
Further, the Petitioner has not explained its franchisor and franchisee relationship, if any. Nor has the 
Petitioner reconciled the submission of its ownl II 120S returns with the Beneficiary's J&M­
issued W-2s. Here, it dors not arpear as if the Petitioner, I I paid the Beneficiary from the priority 
date onward. Notably, and J&M do not share the same Federal Employee Identification 
Number (FEIN). Accordingly, we cannot determine the relationship between J&M andl IThis 
is relevant, as it informs our analysis of whether J&M is a successor-in-interest, as well as whether the 
Petitioner had the ability to pay the Beneficiary the proffered wage from the priority date onward, per 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2).9 
Additionally, the change from ._________ __.as the issuing entity for a portion of the 
Beneficiary's paystubs in 2006 casts doubt on the legitimacy of the paystubs. It appears they may 
have been created or altered specifically to serve as evidence, rather than having been legitimately 
generated by a payroll department or service. Similar discrepancies appear throughout the evidence 
of record. For example, when we examine other letters in the record from I lwe note spelling 
errors concerning the Petitioner's name. The letterhead also appears to be altered or manipulated. For 
instance, two letters from I I one from 2007 and another from 2012, contain the name i I I l{all-capital formatting removed, and italics added). While 
we understand that typographical errors do occur, we question the credibility of documents when, over 
the span of years, repeated errors appear in the Petitioner's name and on its own letterhead. 
On appeal, the Beneficiary stated that "in 2001 and in 2004, respectively, the Petitioner had the need 
for the position and the intended place of employment had kitchen and baking facilities on site." The 
Beneficiary acknowledges that at the time of the site visit, the Petitioner received its frozen bakery 
products froml I However, the Beneficiary argues that during the site visit, the manager at the 
location told USCIS officers that the~deliveries began in 2013. In support, the Beneficiary states 
thatLJdid not establish its business until October 2010 and did not begin delivering products until 
April 2013. The Beneficiary argues that in 2004, when the labor certification was filed, and in 2006, 
when the 1-140 petition was filed, the Petitioner prepared and baked the bakery products onsite. 
Accordingly, the Beneficiary argues that a bona fide job offer existed at the time of filing the labor 
certification. 
8 Additionally, as stated previously, the Beneficiary stated on the labor certification that he worked for ,________,
I Ifrom March 2001 to the '·present," which would have been at least until April 2004, as that 
was when the Beneficiary signed the labor certification. 
9 A valid successor-in-interest relationship exists if three conditions are satisfied. See Matter of Dial Auto Repair Shop, 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 481 (Comm'r 1986). First, the successor must fully describe and document the transfer and assumption 
of the ownership of the predecessor by the successor. Second, the successor must demonstrate that the job opportunity is 
the same as originally offered on the labor certification. Third, the successor must establish by a preponderance of the 
evidence that it is eligible for the immigrant visa in all respects. Id. 
5 
We observe that the Beneficiary's statements on appeal pertain to the Petitioner's business history as 
well as to information of which the Beneficiary does not appear to have first-hand knowled~ 
illustrate, the Beneficiary has not demonstrated how he would know whether the Petitioner, L__J 
had kitchen and baking facilities onsite in 2001, nor is it apparent how the Beneficiary would know 
what the manager told USCIS officers during the site visit. As previously noted, the Beneficiary states 
on appeal that "[i]n 2001 and in 2004, respectively, the Petitioner had the need for the position and the 
intended place of employment had a kitchen and baking facilities on the site."10 Although the 
Beneficiary asserts that the Petitioner prepared and baked its products onsite in 2006, this does not 
address whether the Petitioner needed a baker at the time the Petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition 
in 2006. 
During the site visit, the manager stated that the Beneficiary had been working at that location since 
2010. The Beneficiary also confirms this timeframe on appeal. However, the Petitioner submitted 
multiple W-2 forms indicating that the Beneficiary worked for J&M prior to 2010. We cannot 
determine what relevance the Beneficiary's J&M W-2s have in determining the Petitioner's ability to 
pay the proffered wage. Furthermore, we cannot ascertain when the Beneficiary began working for 
the Petitioner or where, as opposed to when and where, he worked for J&M. This further casts doubt 
on how the Beneficiary would have knowledge of the Petitioner's business activities and staffing 
needs. Although the Beneficiary claims that the Petitioner prepared and baked the bakery products 
onsite at the time of filing the labor certification and the petition, he has not provided evidence to 
corroborate his claims, nor has he demonstrated how he would have knowledge of the Petitioner, such 
that he can comment on the Petitioner's business needs and baking facilities prior to 2010. It is the 
Petitioner's burden to submit evidence that sufficiently corroborates its claims. Statements made 
without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and are insufficient to satisfy the 
burden of proof. Matter of Soffici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
On appeal, the Beneficiary also submits a letter from the president of~---------~ 
stating thatpwas established inl 12010 and began delivering finished and unfinished bakery 
products to_ Istores on April 28, 2013. This letter, signed by a 1~-~lwith 
an illegible first name, contains a grammatical error and unusual font size, margins, and spacing. 
While the president ofLJpurportedly signed the letter, given its appearance we question the letter's 
legitimacy. 
The Beneficiary also provides an October 2021 affidavit from 1 I' one of the Petitioner's 
shareholders. I !asserts that he was the manager on duty during the USCIS site visit. In his 
affidavit, I Iwrites that he told USCIS officers during the site visit that I lbegan 
delivering finished and unfinished bakery products to the worksite location in 2013 and further 
claimed that he "did not state to the USCIS Officer, on November 16, 2017, thatLJhad started to 
deliver finished and/or unfinished bakery products to this business since 2006." As noted previously, 
the Director's decision stated that the manager told USCIS officers that theLJdeliveries had been 
in place since early 2009. The Director's decision did not claim that the onsite manager had told 
10 The phrase "[i]n 2001 and in 2004, respectively" seems to suggest that the position and facilities existed at the worksite 
in 2001, but the position and facilities did not necessarily exist in the intervening years of 2002 or 2003, and then again 
existed in 2004. 
6 
USCIS officers that0deliveries had been in place since 2006. Overall,! Istatements 
do not align with USCIS' findings, as described in the Director's decision.11 Simply asserting in an 
affidavit what happened four years prior does not qualify as independent and objective evidence. 
Evidence created after USCIS points out the deficiencies and inconsistencies in the petition will not 
be considered independent and objective evidence. Necessarily, independent and objective evidence 
would be evidence that is contemporaneous with the event to be proven and existent prior to appellate 
proceedings. The Beneficiary must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Although we acknowledge the affidavit, it has limited 
probative value as it refers to events that occurred in 2017 (USCIS site visit) and purportedly in 2013 
(commencement ot0deliveries) and does not appear to be independent or objective. 
The Director may determine the relationship, if any, between J&M a~This is material issue, 
as it informs the analysis of whether J&M is a successor-in-interest otc=Jas well as whethe~ I 
had the ability to pay the Beneficiary the proffered wage from the priority date onward. 
B. The Beneficiary's Experience 
As evidence of the Beneficiary's qualifications for the baker osition the initial submission included 
an employer letter froml I the ownef-'r_o~f~-.---------------~
I fstating that the Beneficiary worked for~-~ as a baker from January 1996 to May 1998. 
The letter described the Beneficiary's duties in terms nearly verbatim to the ones provided on the labor 
certification. As such, the Director may question whether the Petitioner had influence over the 
contents of the letter. At the very least, the nearly verbatim language reduces the probative value of 
the letter, as it does not appear to have been independently written. Further, the letter contains unusual 
punctuation and capitalization, appears to be on altered or imitated letterhead, and does not include 
I I contact information or a date. Due to its appearance, the Director may question the 
validity of the letter as well as the probative value of the statements therein. 
In the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), Counsel stated that the 
Benlficiary f°uld not provide any tax returns or W-2s from I Ito corroborate his employment 
with during the years 1996 to 1998 because the Beneficiary was paid in cash and did not have 
a social security number until 1999.12 Counsel also provided a telephone number tori I 
and stated that his letter was written on December 20, 2005. Notably, without documentary evidence 
to corroborate them, the claims of Counsel will not satisfy the Petitioner's burden ofproof. Counsel's 
unsupported claims do not constitute evidence. Matter of Arambula-Bravo, 28 l&N Dec. 388, 396 
(BIA 2021); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 {BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 
19 l&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 l&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). Aside from the questionable letter froml Ithe Director may wish to determine 
whether the record contains evidence to corroborate the claim that the Beneficiary gained the requisite 
two years' experience as a baker as of the petition's priority date. The Director may acknowledge that 
the labor certification states the Beneficiary gained experience as a baker with J&M from March 2001 
11 1 lalso asserts in his affidavit that '·prior to April 28, 2013, thid location produced all bake1y 
products on its site by employees" and that at the time of filing the petition in 2006, '·we had an open position as a baker 
which was offered to [the Beneficiary]." 
12 We acknowledge a copy of a 2010 printout purportedly from the Social Security Administration, which verifies the 
Beneficiary's social security number. 
I
7 
to the "present." However, the Director may determine that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
evidence to establish this, such as through tax documents, a letter, or paystubs.13 
When issuing a new decision, the Director may consider what corroborative evidence, if rnv, thel 
record contains to support Counsel's claim that the Beneficiary does not have W-2s from 
because he was paid in cash and had no social security number. For the reasons described above, the 
Director may determine the letter froml Iconcerning the Beneficiary's employment at
I I, is insufficient to conclude that the Beneficiary had the requisite two years of experience as of 
the priority date of the petition. 14 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Director may acknowledge the Beneficiary's claims that a bona fide job offer existed at the time 
of filing the labor certification and the 1-140 petition; however, the Director may wish to examine 
whether Beneficiary has provided sufficient evidence to corroborate his claims and how the 
Beneficiary would have knowledge of the Petitioner, such that he can comment on the Petitioner's 
business needs and baking facilities. It is the Petitioner's (here, the Beneficiary's) burden to submit 
evidence that sufficiently corroborates its claims. Statements made without supporting documentation 
are of limited probative value and are insufficient to satisfy the Petitioner's (Beneficiary's) burden of 
proof. Soffici, 22 l&N Dec. at 165. 
We will remand the case to the Director to consider this, as well as to consider how the lack of baking 
facilities onsite relates to the future nature of the job offer. In so doing, the Director may examine 
whether the job duties at the time of filing were accurate. If the record supports a finding of 
misrepresentation, the Director may wish to provide additional information about which entity or 
individuals committed the misrepresentation. When considering these issues, the Director may 
consider the deficiencies and inconsistencies related to the Petitioner's ability to pay and the 
Beneficiary's experience.15 The Director may also issue a new NOIR in accordance with the 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) and (c) and Matter of Estime. 
13 The record also contains a W-2 for tax year 2000 issued to the Beneficiary naming his employer as -~---~ 
The complete name of the employer appears to be cut off. The FEIN for this employer differs 
from both the Petitioner's J&M's FEIN. 
14 As explained above, during the site visit, the manager stated that the Beneficiary had been working at that location since 
2010. The Beneficiary confirms this timeframe on appeal. However, the Petitioner submitted multiple W-2 forms 
indicating that the Beneficiary worked for J&M prior to 2010. Furthermore, we cannot ascertain when the Beneficiary 
began working for the Petitioner or where, as opposed to when and where, he worked for J&M. 
15 On top of the deficiencies and inconsistencies described above, the Direct! r ma] also wish to apply additional scrutiny 
to the parties underlying the petition. The Beneficiary has the surname President I lserved as the 
Petitioner's authorized representative and also appears to serve as the new employer's authorized representative. He signed 
all tax documents and employment letters, except for an emplo er experience letter from Ion behalf otl I 
As noted above) ] provided an affidavit, while a with an illegible first name signed a letter purportedly 
fromc=] In examining the shareholders listed on.__ _ __.1120s returns, we note all shareholders share the surname 
I IThe shareholders all provide the same address for themselves, which the Beneficiary also listed as his own home 
address on several documents throughout the record, suggesting that the Beneficiary lived with and may be related to the 
Petitioner's shareholders. Government records also indicate that the Petitioner's shareholders and several of their relatives 
listed a foreign address abroad, which is the same address that the Beneficiary listed for his address abroad. In addition, 
the shareholders' relatives, the Petitioner, the Beneficiary, and the new employer J&M, all retained the same attorney to 
8 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further consideration 
and the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
process their immigration applications and petitions. While the current labor certification form explicitly includes a 
question concerning a familial relationship between a petitioner's shareholders and a beneficiary, we acknowledge that the 
labor certification form from 2004 does not explicitly request disclosure of this information. Nevertheless, taken together, 
the Director may wish to explore whether these shared addresses, surnames, and attorney suggest that the Petitioner and 
Beneficiary share a family relationship. When exploring this issue, the Director may wish to determine how a potential 
family relationship affects the overall legitimacy and veracity of the evidence provided. 
9