remanded EB-3 Case: Business Administration

MATTER OF B-R-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 3, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an ice cream franchise, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an administrative 
assistant. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference 
immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This "EB-3" classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a foreign 
national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that requires at least two years of 
training or experience. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center initially approved the petttlon, but subsequently 
revoked approval of the petition after concluding that the Petitioner had not established that the 
Beneficiary possessed the minimum experience required on the labor certification for the proffered 
position. Specifically, the Director found that the employment history the Beneficiary claimed on 
the labor certification and within the context of the petition did not match the employment history 
that she had claimed when she first sought a nonimmigrant visa. The Director subsequently denied 
the Petitioner's motion and affirmed his decision to revoke approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's revocation was erroneous because he did not cite 
the factual basis for revocation in his notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval of the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will remand the case for further proceedings. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer must 
obtain an approved labor certification from DOL. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). By approving the labor certification, DOL certifies that there are insufficient 
U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available for the offered position and that 
employing a foreign national in the position will not adversely affect the wages and working 
conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II) of the 
Act. Second, the employer may file 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. 
Matter of B-R-
After granting a petition, USCIS may revoke the petition's approval "at any time" for "good and 
sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1155. Good and sufficient cause exists to issue 
an NOIR where the record at the time of the notice's issuance, if unexplained or unrebutted, would 
have warranted the petition's denial. Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 451 (BIA 1987). 
Similarly, revocation is proper if the record at the time of the decision, including any explanation or 
rebuttal evidence provided by a petitioner, warranted a petition's denial. !d. at 452. 
If supported by the record, a director's realization that a petition was erroneously approved may 
justify revocation. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In this case, the Director's revocation of approval was not based on the information cited in the 
NOIR. Accordingly, the Director's decision will be withdrawn. However, because the petition does 
not appear to be approvable, the matter is remanded for a new decision. 
A. The Notice of Intent to Revoke 
In his NOIR, the Director advised the Petitioner that the Beneficiary had provided information 
regarding the names of her employers and the dates of her employment in South Korea that 
contradicted the employment history listed on the labor certification and a Form G-325A, Biographic 
Information. However, after the Petitioner responded to the NOIR, the Director cited to previously 
undisclosed derogatory information and revoked approval of the petition, concluding that "[a] 
review of the record . . . shows that the beneficiary still claimed to be a social worker and not an 
administrative assistant at the time of filing for her non immigrant [sic] visa.'' 
In this case, the Director's NOIR did not advise the Petitioner of the contradictory information 
regarding the Beneficiary's prior job title, although the Director ultimately cited to this discrepancy 
as the basis for revoking approval of the Petition. Therefore, the revocation was not based on 
derogatory information made available to the Petitioner in accordance with binding precedent. See 
Estime, 19 I&N Dec. at 452 (concluding that "where the petitioner is unaware and has not been 
advised of derogatory evidence, revocation of the visa petition cannot be sustained"). As a 
consequence, we will withdraw the decision of the Director and remand the matter. However, it 
remains that the petition does not appear to have been approvable based on the contradictory 
information in the record. 
B. Contradictory Claims 
As discussed in the Director's NOIR, USCIS records reflect contradictory information regarding the 
Beneficiary's employment history. According to the labor certification, the proffered position of 
administrative assistant requires a minimum of two years of experience as an administrative 
assistant. On the labor certification, which the Beneficiary signed on August 15, 20 15, she claimed 
to have approximately nine years of qualifying experience as an administrative assistant as follows: 
2 
.
Matter of B-R-
Job title Em Ioyer name Em Ioyer address Start date End date 
Administrative First address: 3/2/1997 2/28/2006 
assistant 
South Korea 
Second address: 
[sic] 
South Korean 
With this petitiOn, the Beneficiary concurrently tiled a Form I-485, Application to Register 
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and a supporting Form G-325A. On the Form G-325A , the 
Beneficiary claimed that she had worked as an administrative assistant for ' m 
South Korea from March 1997 to February 2006. 
USCIS records reflect that the Beneficiary has previously claimed employment history that 
contradicts the above assertions. When the Beneficiary sought to obtain a nonimmigrant visa in 
April of 2008, she claimed the following employment history in South Korea: 
Job title Employer name Employer address Start date End date 
Social [no date Listed under 
Welfare -
I ~ l 
given] "present 
Worker il employer" m 
April2008 
Social I Aug 2006 Dec 2007 
Welfare 
Worker 
Social j Jun 2004 Jul2006 
Welfare 
Worker I 
The employers and dates of employment that the Beneficiary claimed in 2008 are inconsistent with 
the employment history she provided in 2015. 
In response to the NOIR 
and on appeal, the Petitioner provided letters from one of the Beneficiary's 
claimed employers in South Korea: According to 
president , the center was established in 1997 as a community-based 
social welfare house, and existed under that name from 1997 through February 2006, at which time 
it closed. stated that he and the president of 
.
Matter of B-R-
established ' in August 2006, the organization was taken under the 
wing of the church in October 2007, and the South Korean government approved 
it to operate under its current name of m 
January 2008. 
also stated that the Beneficiary worked for from 
1997 through 2006, performing general administrative work, 
and at 
from August 2006 through December 2007. also claimed that the Beneficiary 
worked for as an intern from July 2003 and as an administrative 
worker from June 2004 through July 2006, while she was also working at 
However, did not claim to be affiliated with 
or explain the basis for asserting that the Beneficiary worked there from 2003 to 2006. 
Moreover, when she applied for her nonimmigrant visa in 2008, the Beneficiary herself did not 
claim to have worked for any entity other than from June 2004 to 
July 2006. Although stated that the Beneficiary worked at 
beginning in July 2003, the Beneficiary 
did not claim to have worked there before June 2004. 
Because the assertions in letters are contradicted by the Beneficiary ' s own claims 
in 2008, the letters do not resolve the contradictory information in the record regarding the 
Beneficiary's qualifying experience. Consequently, employment verification 
letters do not establish that the Beneficiary has qualifying experience gained at 
as claimed on the labor certification . 
The Petitioner also submits the Beneficiary's Korean tax records for 2004 through 2008; however, 
the records do not reflect that the Beneficiary had any income for employment at 
between 2004 and 2006. Instead, the 
tax records reflect that the Beneficiary worked at 
in 2004, nursing center from 2004 through 2006, and 
in 2008. 1 Accordingly , the tax records do not 
establish that the Beneficiary has any of the qualifying experience as an administrative assistant 
gained at from March 2, 1997, to February 28, 2006, as she 
claimed on the labor certification. 
The Petitioner includes letters from individuals in South Korea who claim to have worked with the 
Beneficiar
y and to have knowledge of her concurrent employment at 
and stated that she had worked at 
as a welfare worker since 2004, and had worked there with the Beneficiar y 
between 2004 and 2006. claimed that she worked together with the Beneficiary at 
in 2004 and 2005, and that the Beneficiary was still working there 
when quit at the end of 2005. Neither nor claimed to have worked at 
nor did they claim to have visited with the Beneficiary at Song 
or provide any details establishing how they knew she worked there. 
1 The tax record s also do not show that the Beneficiar y worked at in 2006, the alleged 
successor to as she had claimed in 2008 when seeking a nonimmigrant visa. 
4 
.
Matter of B-R-
The letter from is accompanied by tax records showing that worked for 
from 2005 to 2006, and as recently as 2015, but this does not 
support claim to have worked there with the Beneficiary in 2004. The letter from 
IS accompanied by tax records showing that worked at 
from 2004 to 2006, but this contradicts claim to have quit 
in 2005. Moreover, the business registration number on both of their tax 
records is which does not match the number of recorded for 
on the Beneficiary 's tax records. Accordingly , based on the contradictory 
information in the letters and tax records , these letters do not establish that the Beneficiary worked at 
the same employer with and during any period, and also are not sufficient 
to establish the Beneficiary's employment as an administrative assistant at 
between 2004 and 2006. 
Finally, we note that although the Beneficiary claimed on the Form G-325A that her last address 
outside the United States was in South Korea from July 2008 to July 2009, the record 
contains a copy of her 2008 marriage certificate which shows she married her husband in 
Nevada on 2008, that they both claimed to be from California , and that they 
listed their shared address on m California . The information on the 
marriage certificate contradicts the Beneficiary's claim to have resided in South Korea from 
July 2008 to July 2009, and further undermines the reliability of the Beneficiary's claims. The 
Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material 
inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted 
in support of the requested immigration benefit. /d. 
The above contradictory information regarding the names of the Beneficiary's claimed employers in 
South Korea, and the dates and duration of her claimed employment and residence in South Korea 
are not resolved. Based on the contradictory information regarding the Beneficiary's prior 
qualifying employment, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has the qualifying 
experience as an administrative assistant and, consequently, that the petition was approvable. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In view of the foregoing , the previous decision of the Director will be withdrawn . The petition is 
remanded to the Director. The Director may request any additional evidence considered 
pertinent. Similarly , the Petitioner may provide additional evidence within a reasonable period of 
time to be determined by the Director. Upon receipt of all the evidence, the Director will review the 
entire record and enter a new decision. 
Matter of B-R-
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 o.fB-R-, ID# 583566 (AAO Jan. 3, 2018)