EB-3 Remanded — Commercial Cleaning (2022): the Director did not properly assess the petitioner's claim

Decision Summary

The appeal was remanded because the Director did not properly assess the petitioner's claim that a successor-in-interest had acquired the company and that the job offer remained valid. The AAO determined that the Director failed to sufficiently analyze whether the new company qualified as a successor-in-interest and had the ability to pay the proffered wage, sending the case back for a new decision.

Criteria Discussed

Sign up free to download the original PDF