remanded EB-3 Case: Bookkeeping

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 80926 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 28, 2022 
The Petitioner, a liquor store operator, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a bookkeeper under the 
third-preference, immigrant visa category for skilled workers. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 203(b )(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(3)(A)(i). 
After the filing's initial grant, the Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the petition's approval. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the bona fides of its job offer or the 
Beneficiary's possession of the minimum employment experience required for the offered position 
and the requested immigrant visa category. The Director also found that the Beneficiary 
misrepresented his qualifying experience on the accompanying certification from the U.S. Department 
of Labor (DOL ). 
In these revocation proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the 
requested benefit by a preponderance of evidence. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,589 (BIA 
1988)(discussingthe burden of proof); see also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 
2010) (discussing the standard of proof). Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION 
Immigration as a skilled worker generally follows a three-step process. First, a prospective employer 
must apply to DOL for certification that: (1) there are insufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, 
and available for an offered position; and (2) employment of a noncitizen in the position would not harm 
wages and working conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs . See section 212(aX5) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5). 
Second, an employer must submit an approved labor certification 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 determines whether a noncitizen beneficiary meets the requirements of a 
DOL-certified position and a requested immigrant visa category. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1). 
Finally, ifUSCIS approves a petition, a noncitizen beneficiary 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. 
"[A ]t any time" before a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence, however, USCIS may revoke 
a petition's approval for "good and sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155. If 
supported by a record, the enoneous nature of a petition's approval justifies its revocation. Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 590. 
USCIS properly issues a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) a petition if the unexplained andunrebutted 
record at the time of the NOIR' s issuance would have wananted the filing' s denial. Matter of Es time, 
19 I&N Dec. 450, 451 (BIA 1987). If a petitioner's NOIR response does not overcome stated 
revocation grounds, USCIS properly revokes a petition's approval. Id. at 451-52. 
II. THE BONA FIDES OF THE JOB OFFER 
A business may file an immigrant visa petition if the enterprise is "desiring and intending to employ 
[a noncitizen] within the United States." Section 204(a)(l )(F) of the Act. A petitioner must intend to 
employ a beneficiary under the tenns and conditions of an accompanying labor ce1iification. See 
Matter of Izdebska, 12 I&N Dec. 54, 55 (Reg'l Comm'r 1966) (affirming a petition's denial where, 
contrary to an accompanying labor certification, a petitioner did not intend to employ a beneficiary as 
a domestic worker on a full-time, live-in basis). 
The Director's NOIR questions the Petitioner's need for the full-time, offered position of bookkeeper. 
The NOIR notes the Petitioner's stated operation of a liquor store and employment of three people. 
The NOIR states that "the petitioner ha[ s] not indicated why a small business such as [it] would need 
a full-time bookkeeper at [its] location." 
The Petitioner's stated number of employees casts doubt on the business's need for a full-time 
bookkeeper. But the size of the company's staff, alone, would not have warranted the petition's denial 
for an invalid job offer. The Director should have considered additional factors, such as the amount 
of the Petitioner's revenues and the complexity of its business and the proposed job duties. 
The NOIR also notes the Beneficiary's associations with four other Massachusetts corporations. The 
NOTR suggests that the Beneficiary's other business activities would prevent him from working for 
the Petitioner on the offered, full-time basis. 
The NOIR, however, does not describe the Beneficiary's other business activities sufficiently enough 
to establish that they would hinder his ability to work full-time in the offered position. Commonwealth 
records list the Beneficiary as a corporate officer or director of the other companies. See Sec'y of the 
Commonwealth of Mass., "Search for a business entity," https://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corpweb/ 
CorpSearch/CorpSearch.aspx. Massachusetts corporations, however, need not employ their officers 
or directors. Rather, officers and directors need only meet the requirements stated in the corporations' 
respective articles of organization or bylaws. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156D § 8.02, 8.40. Thus, the 
Beneficiary's association with the other businesses in the commonwealth may not hamper his ability 
to work for the Petitioner full-time. Also, Form I-140 beneficiaries need not begin working in offered 
positions until they obtain lawful permanent residence. See, e.g., Matter of Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127, 
2 
13 2 (BIA 2009). Thus, without citing evidence of time spent working for other employers that raises 
inferences of continued future employment, the NOIR's reference to the Beneficiary's other business 
associations would not have warranted the petition's denial. 
The NOIR also notes that copies of the Petitioner's federal income tax returns indicate their 
preparation by an independent accountant. As a result, the NOIR alleges that the company did not 
demonstrate its intent to employ the Beneficiary in the offered position of bookkeeper. 
As certified by DOL, however, the job duties of the offered position do not include preparing the 
Petitioner's tax returns. Also, the labor ce1iification does not state the Beneficiary's current 
employment in the offered position. Thus, an accountant's handling of the company's taxes does not 
negate its stated intent to employ the Beneficiary in the offered position. Moreover, as previously 
discussed, the Beneficiary need not begin working for the Petitioner in the position until he obtains 
lawful permanent residence. SeeMatterofRajah, 25 I&NDec. at 132. Therefore,eveniftheproposed 
job duties included preparing the Petitioner's taxes, the accountant's tax preparations would not 
substantially undermine the Petitioner's stated intent to employ the Beneficiary. See Matter of Arias, 
19 I&N Dec. 568, 570 (BIA 1988) (holding that conclusory, speculative, equivocal, or irrelevant 
observations do not provide "good and sufficient cause" to issue a NOIR). 
For the foregoing reasons, the NOIR's current allegations regarding the bonafides of the Petitioner's 
job offer would not have warranted the petition's denial. We will therefore withdraw the petition's 
revocation on this ground. 
III. THE REQUIRED EXPERIENCE 
A skilled worker must perform "skilled labor (requiring at least 2 years training or experience)." 
Section 203(b )(3)(A)(i) of the Act. A petitioner must also demonstrate a beneficiary's possession of 
all DOL-certified,job requirements of an offered position by a petition's priority date. 1 Matter of 
Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, USCIS must examine the job-offer portion of an 
accompanying labor certification to determine a position's minimum job requirements. USCIS may 
neither ignore a certification term, nor impose additional requirements. See, e.g., Madany v. Smith, 
696 F.2d 1008, 1015 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (holding that "DOL bears the authority for setting the content 
of the labor ce1iification") ( emphasis in original). 
The accompanying labor certification states the minimum requirements of the offered position of 
bookkeeper as two years of experience in the job offered. The labor certification states that the position 
requires neither training nor education. 
On the labor certification, the Beneficiary attested that, by the petition's priority date, he gained more 
than three years of full-time, qualifying experience. He stated that a metals company in India 
1 This petition's priority date is August 20,2001, the date an office in DOL's employment service system accepted the 
accompanying labor certification application for processing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(d) (explaining how to determine a 
petition's priority date). 
3 
employed him as a bookkeeper from June 6, 1994, to August 25, 1997. He claimed no other qualifying 
expenence. 
Consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A), the Petitioner supported the Beneficiary's claimed 
experience with letters from the purported proprietor of the metals company. The letters - dated in 
2000, 2001, and 2010 - state the company's employment of the Beneficiary during the claimed period 
and describe his experience. 
The Director, however, did not credit the letters from the Beneficiary's purported former employer. 
Because the record contains discrepancies regarding the Beneficiary's identity, the Director found 1he 
letters insufficient to establish the Indian company's employment of the Beneficiary. 
As the NOIR notes, the Beneficiary contends that he has used another identity. He claims that the 
Form I-140 petition, his applications for adjustment of status, and the letters from the Indian company 
list his true birth date and name, bearing the initials "D.P." The name of his other purported identity 
reflects the initials "M.K." The Beneficiary's two most recent applications for adjustment of status 
include copies of pages in an Indian passport, a business visitor visa, and a Form I-94 entry card 
bearing the M.K. name and bi1ihdate. The Beneficiary's second adjustment application includes a 
2005 affidavit from him, stating his last admission to the United States as a business visitor under 1he 
M.K. identity. With his third and most recent adjustment application, the Beneficiary submitted a 
199 5 affidavit, also stating that "both names are used for me. "2 
As the Director noted, the Petitioner has not explained all the discrepancies of record regarding the 
Beneficiary's identity. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring petitioners to resolve 
inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). The Beneficim.y 
claims his last admission to the United States as a business visitor in the M.K. name on July 29, 1997. 
But the record does not explain why the Form I-140 petition and the Beneficiary's first adjustment 
application state that he last entered the country without admission in September 1997. Also, contrary 
to U.S. immigration records, the copy of the visa under the M.K. identity states the document's 
issuance in I India, not I Brazil. The Petitioner has not explained the 
discrepancy in the visa's issuing post. 
Additionally, a page in the passport in the D.P. name contains a U.S. admission stamp purportedly 
issued in I in April 199 8. The stamp suggests that, contrary to the Beneficiary's claim, 
he last entered the United States as D.P. in 1998, not as M.K. in 1997. Further, the Beneficiary's 1995 
affidavit indicates that he began using the M.K. identity by at least that year. Thus, the statement 
suggests that he assumed the alias before his arrival in the United States. The Petitioner has not 
specified when or explained why the Beneficiary purportedly began using the M.K. identity. 
Despite these unresolved inconsistencies of record, the Director did not fully consider or notify the 
Petitioner of additional evidence regarding the Beneficiary's identity. Consistent with the passport, 
visa, and Form I-94 entry card in the name and bi1ihdate of M.K., USCIS records show that 
immigration officers admitted an M.K. atl I on July 29, 1997. The records do not indicate 
2 The Beneficiaiywithdrewhis first adjustment application, which he filed in 2004. USCIS denied his second application, 
finding tha the did not demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
4 
any other immigration activity by M.K. Thus, these records tend to support the Beneficiary's claimed 
last admission to the country as M.K. Also, consistent with the copy of the M.K. visa, U.S. 
immigration records indicate the document's issuance on June 4, 1997, and its validity for a single, 
U.S. entry through August 29, 1997. Thus, notwithstanding the discrepancy in the visa's listed post 
of issuance, the records suggest the document's original, valid issuance by U.S. authorities. 
The Beneficiary also submitted copies of his purported bi1ih and marriage ce1iificates under the D.P. 
identity, his claimed true name and birthdate. As the Director noted, the birth certificate states its 
issuance in August 1997, more than 24 years after the Beneficiary's claimed date of birth. Thus, the 
certificate's delayed issuance casts doubt on the document's reliability. See Matter of Serna, 16 I&N 
Dec. 643, 645 (BIA 1978) (stating that "the opportunity for fraud is much greater with a delayed birth 
certificate"). But USCIS records show that, in 2018, Indian authorities found both the Beneficiazy's 
bi1ih certificate and his 1995 marriage ce1iificate in the D.P. identity to be copies of authentic 
government documents. The birth and marriage certificates therefore support the Beneficiazy's 
claimed, true identity. See Matter of Rehman, 27 I&N Dec. 124, 127 (BIA 2017) (requiring 
consideration of other evidence and circumstances when determining the reliability of delayed birth 
certificates). 
The record also contains additional, derogatory infonnation of which the NOIR did not fully inf orm 
the Petitioner. The Beneficiary claims his last entry into the United States as M.K. on July 2 9, 1997. 
This date, however, conflicts with the Beneficiary's claimed employment in India from June 6, 1994, 
through August 2 5, 199 7. The discrepancy in the end date of the Beneficiary's claimed employment 
casts doubt on the accuracy of the letters from his purported former employer and his claimed, 
qualifying experience. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve 
inconsistencies of record). Also, U.S. government records identify the proprietor who signed the 
letters from the claimed, former employer as an older brother of the Beneficiary. The letters do not 
disclose this purported relationship, preventing proper consideration of the documents' evidentiary 
value. A petitioner may submit a letter or affidavit that contains biased information, but the partiality 
will affect the weight to be accorded the evidence. See Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 461 (BIA 
2011) ( citations omitted). 
Additionally, in May 2011, the Beneficiary's purported son and the Beneficiary's purported brother -
the signatory of the experience letters - provided sworn statements to U.S. officers in India regarding 
a visa application by the son, who was then 14 years old. Both the Beneficiary's purported brother 
and son identified the proprietor/signatory as the boy's uncle and the Beneficiary's brother. The 
Beneficiary's purported son also attested that, in 2008 and 2009, the proprietor gave him false 
documents with which to apply for U.S. visitor visas. The proprietor's apparent fraternal relationship 
to the Beneficiary and his purported, illicit visa help to the Beneficiary's son cast doubt on the 
objectivity and reliability of the experience letters he signed for the Beneficiary. See Matter of Ho, 19 
I&NDec. at 591 (statingthatdoubtcaston any aspect of a petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation 
of the sufficiency and reliability of the remaining evidence of record). 3 
3 The Director noted that copies oflndian permanent account number cards ("PAN cards") of the Beneficiary and the 
signatory ofthe experience letters suggest a fraternal relationship between them en. The Director, however, did not allege 
that the letters were biased or unreliable. Additional evidence also casts doubt on the Beneficiary's reliability. USCIS 
records indicate that he and members of his family attempted to enter the United States in l 996with false immigrant visas 
5 
The Director did not consider or notify the Petitioner of this additional evidence regarding the 
Beneficiary's identity. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i). We will therefore withdraw the Director's 
decision regarding the Beneficiary's qualifying experience and his alleged misrepresentation of the 
experience on the accompanying labor certification. 
We will remand the matter so the Director can issue an amended NOIR describing the additionaL 
derogatory infonnation and how it casts doubt on the Beneficiary's claimed, qualifying experience. 
The amended NOIR should also explain that the Petitioner must submit independent, objective 
evidence resolving the inconsistencies ofrecord regarding the Beneficiary's identity and experience. 
If supported by the record, the amended NOIR may allege any additional inconsistencies, evidence, 
or grounds of revocation. The Director, however, must afford the Petitioner a reasonable opp01tunity 
to respond to all issues raised on remand. Upon receipt of a timely response, the Director should 
review the entire record and enter a new decision. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The NOIR did not supp01i the revocation of the petition's approval based on the bonafides of the job 
offer. The Director, however, did not consider or notify the Petitioner of additional evidence regarding 
the Beneficiary's identity and his claimed experience for the offered position and the requested 
immigrant visa category. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
with which he claimed another brother had supplied them. Further, the Beneficiary' s purported brother who operates the 
Indian company told U.S. officials in 2011 that the Beneficiary participated in schemes to obtain false U.S. visas for his 
son. 
6