remanded EB-3 Case: Beauty Salon

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
~obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the by the 
Director, Texas Service Center. On further review of the record, the director determined that the beneficiary 
was not eligible for the benefit sought. The director subsequently revoked approval of the petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The director's decision to revoke 
the approval will be withdrawn and the case will be returned to the director for further investigation and 
review. 
The petitioner is a beauty salon. It sought to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
hair salon manager. As required by statute, the petition was accompanied by an individual labor certification 
approved by the Department of Labor. 
The record indicates that the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (1-140) was filed on November 18,2002. 
It was initially approved on June 1 7,2003. 
The beneficiary had previously been s onsored as a beneficiary of a Petition for Alien Relative (Form 1-130) 
that had been filed byd U.S. citizen, on July 22, 2000. Following an interview in 
connection with the beneficiary's Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I- 
485) and the conclusion of the Immigration and Naturalization Service now U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS), that the marria e between the beneficiary and been 
contracted in order to evade immigration law ithdrew the 1-130. The 1-485 was denied 
on November 17,2000 based on the withdrawal of the underlying petition. 
On May 5, 2005, citing Section 204 (c) of the Immigration aqd Naturalization Act (ACT) [8 USC 1154(c)], 
which limits the approval of other petitions in certain circumstances involving sham marriages, the director 
concluded that the 1-140 was approved in error based u on'the prior proceedings. The director revoked the 
approval of the 1-140. 
 ? 
Section 205 of the Act, states: "[tlhe Attorney General may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and 
sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5, however, provides in pertinent part: 
(b) Notice of intent. Revocation of the approval of a petition of [or] self-petition 
under paragraph (a) of this section will be made only on notice to the petitioner 
or self-petitioner. The petitioner or self-petitioner must be given the 
opportunity to offer evidence in support of the petition or self-petition and his 
opposition to the grounds alleged for revocation of the approval. 
As noted by counsel on appeal, the director did not issue a notice of intent to revoke the 1-140 in this matter 
pursuant to the provisions of 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(b). As such, the director's attempted revocation of the 1-140 
on May 5,2005, has no effect. The 1-140 remains approved. 
Based on the foregoing, further examination of the other issues raised by counsel on appeal is premature. 
The case will be returned to the director for further investigation and consideration. 
Order: The director's decision of May 5,2005 is withdrawn. The case will be returned to the director for 
further investigation and review.