remanded EB-3 Case: Culinary

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 08303266 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for a Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DA TE: APR. 17, 2020 
The Petitioner, a fried chicken and halal food store, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a specialty 
cook. It requests skilled worker classification for the Beneficiary under the third preference immigrant 
category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based "EB-3" immigrant 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 petition, but subsequently revoked 
the approval. The Director found that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary had provided conflicting 
evidence about the Beneficiary's employment history and therefore did not establish that the 
Beneficiary had the requisite experience to meet the terms of the labor certification and qualify for 
classification as a skilled worker. On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly 
consider the documentation it submitted and that the evidence ofrecord establishes the Beneficiary ' s 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision. We will remand the case for further 
consideration and 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)(A)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(a)(5)(A)(i). By approving the labor certification, the 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. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II) of the 
Act. 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 , ifUSCIS 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 I&N Dec. 
450, 451 (BIA 1987). Per 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The petition in this case was filed in April 2016. The initial evidence included a letter from I.__ _ ____. 
I I on the letterhead of] I inl !Pakistan, asserting that the Beneficiary 
had been employed as a "catering-cook" from February 2008 to November 2010, which exceeded the 
two-year requirement to meet the terms of the labor certification and to qualify for skilled worker 
classification. The petition was approved in May 2016. 
In May 2019, however, the Director sent the Petitioner a NOIR stating that "USCIS is in possession 
of adverse information that you may be unaware of regarding your [petition] filed on behalf of [ the 
Beneficiary]." After citing the sections of the labor certification indicating that two years of 
experience in the job offered were required to qualify for the position of specialty chef: the Director 
stated that following "a secondary review of the evidence of record, USCIS discovered that the 
[B]eneficiary ... does not possess the knowledge or skills for which the labor certification was 
approved." Without identifying a specific source, the Director indicated that the Beneficiary "stated 
that she was never employed, and she was a homemaker until the present time." The Director stated 
further that "the experience letter [ froni I appears to be a willful misrepresentation of a 
material fact involving the labor certification application," and concluded that the existing evidence 
did not establish the Beneficiary's fulfillment of the minimum experience requirement for the 
proffered position. 
In response to the NOIR the Petitioner submitted a statement from the Beneficiary asserting that her 
employment verification letter from the restaurant in I I Pakistan, was correct, that she was 
employed as a cook in Pakistan from February 2008 to November 2010, and that she was a housewife 
at the time all of her immigrant applications and petitions were filed from 2011 onward. The Petitioner 
also submitted a letter from a Pakistani tax advisor stating that the Beneficiary was a client of his since 
June 2011 and before that worked atl I until the end of November 2010. 
The Director proceeded to revoke the approval of the pet1t10n. In his decision the Director 
acknowledged the materials submitted in response to the NOIR, but referred to a statement by the 
Beneficiary in her Form 1-485 (application for adjustment of status) "that she was never employed" 
and "was a homemaker until the present time." The Director concluded that the Beneficiary "never 
worked at the restaurant," that "the experience letter appears to be a willful misrepresentation of a 
2 
material fact involving the labor certification application," and that the evidence did not establish that 
the Beneficiary met the minimum experience requirement for the proffered position. While revoking 
the petition's approval, the Director did not make a specific finding of fraud or willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact against the Petitioner or the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider, 1 accompanied by a brief and 
additional evidence. The Petitioner reiterated the claim that the Beneficiary was employed by the 
Pakistani restaurant as a cook in the years 2008-2010, and maintained that the Director's finding to 
the contrary was incorrect. The Petitioner claimed that the Director erred in finding that the 
Beneficiary was never employed based on an alleged statement in her I-485 application because the 
Form I-485 (which was filed in 2016) asks only for "current occupation" to which the Beneficiary 
correctly answered "housewife" (in Part 3.A.). Furthermore, the accompanying Form G-325, 
Biographic Information, dated in June 2016, asked for the applicant's employment in "the last five 
years" which made the entry of "house wife" correct since that is how the Beneficiary had been 
"employed" going back to 2011. We note, however, that the Form G-325 also asked for the applicant's 
"[l]ast employment abroad" and that the Beneficiary left this space blank, which conflicts with her 
claim to have worked at the Pakistani restaurant in the years 2008-2010. This inconsistency must be 
resolved on remand. 2 The Petitioner also submitted some business records, allegedly from the 
restaurant, and some additional letters from Pakistan attesting to the Beneficiary's employment. 
The Director dismissed the combined motions. The Director acknowledged that new evidence of work 
experience had been submitted, but stated that it did not overcome the previous grounds for denial. 
The Director also stated that the Petitioner had not established that the prior decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence of record at that time. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. Based on the entire record we will remand for the Director to 
reissue the NOIR to set forth in greater detail "the facts underlying the proposed action" and "the 
supporting evidence," in accord with Matter of Estime. The Director referred to "a secondary review 
of the evidence ofrecord" and a statement by the Beneficiary that she "was never employed," but did 
not identify any specific document in which the Beneficiary made the purported statement, although 
this appears to be an interpretation of her response to information in her Form I-485. Thus, the 
Director's statement that the employment verification letter from Pakistan was a misrepresentation of 
the facts did not sufficiently detail the adverse evidence to allow the Petitioner the opportunity to 
address any potential defects. 
Next, in the revocation decision the Director described relevant entries in the Beneficiary's I-485 
application slightly differently than the Beneficiary. The Beneficiary stated that her current 
employment (in 2016) was "housewife," rather than stating she "was never employed," as referenced 
1 A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion 
to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(3). 
2 Tt is incumbent upon a petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Attempts 
to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice without competent evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. 582. 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's evidence also reflects 
on the reliability of the petitioner's remaining evidence. See id. 
3 
by the Director. Moreover, the Director did not address the Beneficiary's Form G-325, which 
accompanied the Form I-485, in which she indicated "housewife" as her employment in the last five 
years (2011-2016), but also left blank the space requesting information about her last occupation 
abroad which conflicts with her claim to have worked in the Pakistani restaurant in the years 2008-
2010. In his decision, however, the Director did not explain how either of these documents supports 
his conclusion that the Beneficiary "never worked at the restaurant" in Pakistan, or that the 
employment verification letter from the restaurant was ipso facto a willful misrepresentation of the 
facts. 
Finally, in dismissing the motions to reopen and reconsider, the Director did not explain why the newly 
submitted evidence was insufficient to reopen the proceeding. While acknowledging the submission 
of the evidence, the Director did not address the specific items of documentation or discuss their 
content. The Director also maintained that the Petitioner had not established that the prior decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence of record, but did not fully address the evidence in the 
Beneficiary's I-485 application and Form G-325. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we will remand this case to the Director for further consideration. If 
the Director issues a new NOIR, the content of that notice and the consideration of any evidence 
submitted by the Petitioner should comply with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) and (c) and 
Matter of Estime. The Director shall then issue a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4