remanded EB-3 Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7163285 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 28, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a cook specializing in Chinese cuisine. The 
company requests his classification under the third-preference immigrant category as a skilled worker. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(3)(A)(i). 
After initially granting the filing, the Director of the Nebraska Service Center revoked the petition 's 
approval. Finding that the Petitioner concealed a family relationship between one of the company's 
principals and the Beneficiary, the Director concluded that the petition lacks a valid certification from 
the U.S . Department of Labor (DOL) . 
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 . To permanently fill a position 
in the United States with a foreign worker, a prospective employer must first obtain DOL 
certification . See section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5). DOL approval signifies that 
insufficient U.S. workers are able, willing, qualified, and available for an offered position. Id. Labor 
certification also indicates that employment of a foreign national will not harm wages and working 
conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. Id. 
If DOL approves a position, an employer must next submit the certified labor application 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 beneficiary meets the 
requirements of a DOL-certified position and a requested visa classification. If USCIS grants a 
petition, a foreign national may finally 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 the record, the erroneous nature of a petition's approval justifies its revocation. Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE NOIR 
USCIS may issue a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) if the unexplained and unrebutted record at the 
time of the NOIR' s issuance would have warranted the petition's denial. Matter of Es time, 19 I&N 
Dec. 450, 451 (BIA 1987). USCIS properly revokes a petition's approval if a petitioner's NOIR 
response does not overcome the stated revocation grounds. Id. at 451-52. A NOIR "must include a 
specific statement not only of the facts underlying the proposed action, but also of the supporting 
evidence." Id., at 452. 
Id. 
Where a notice of intention to revoke is based on an unsupported statement or an 
unstated presumption, or where the petitioner is unaware and has not been advised of 
derogatory evidence, revocation of the visa petition cannot be sustained, even if the 
petitioner did not respond to the notice of intention to revoke. 
A revocation must stern from, and a petitioner need only respond to, factual allegations of a NOIR. 
Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568, 570 (BIA 1988). "[C]onclusory, speculative, equivocal, and ... 
irrelevant" allegations do not warrant revocation of a petition's approval. Id. Rather, "[ s ]pecific, 
concrete facts are meaningful." Id. at 570-71. 
Here, the Director's NOIR states only that, during processing of the Beneficiary's immigrant visa 
application at a U.S. consulate, "it was discovered that [he] appears to have familial links with 
individuals affiliated with the petitioning entity." 1 The NOIR notes that, asked on the accompanying 
labor certification whether "there is a familial relationship between the owners, stockholders, 
corporate officers, incorporators, or partners and the alien," the Petitioner indicated "No." Thus, based 
on the alleged invalidity of the labor certification, the NOIR proposes revocation of the petition's 
approval. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(d) (authorizing USCIS to invalidate a labor certification after its 
issuance upon a finding of "fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact involving the labor 
certification application"). 
Without farther details of the alleged misrepresentation, however, the NOIR would not have warranted 
the petition's denial. The NOIR does not describe evidence of the Beneficiary's purported family 
relationship to a principal of the Petitioner. See Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. at 452 (requiring a 
NOIR to "include a specific statement ... of the supporting evidence"). The NOIR states that a family 
relationship between the Beneficiary and a company principal "was discovered." But the notice does 
not identify the principal or describe his or her alleged family relationship to the Beneficiary. A 
"[c]onclusory" allegation would not support revocation of a petition's approval. Matter of Arias, 19 
I&N Dec. at 570. In addition, before issuing an adverse decision, USCIS must advise a petitioner of 
material, derogatory information of which it is unaware and provide it with an opportunity to rebut 
1 The NOIR also alleges that the Beneficiary misrepresented his qualifying experience for the offered position. The 
Director, however, did not revoke the petition's approval on that ground. 
2 
that information. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i). Thus, the Petitioner deserves a more meaningful 
opportunity to rebut detailed, adverse information. 
The revocation decision identifies the Beneficiary's purported relative as "the petitioner's husband." 2 
However, the NOIR did not identify this relationship to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to address 
the specific derogatory information. Moreover, like the NOIR, the decision does not describe evidence 
of the purported relationship or the relative's status as a company principal. Thus, the record lacks 
derogatory information supporting the revocation. See 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b )(l 6)(ii) (stating that, unless 
based on classified information, a determination of statutory eligibility must stem from "information 
contained in the record of proceeding which is disclosed to the applicant or petitioner"); see also 
Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. at 451 ( citations omitted). 
Because of the defects discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the 
matter. On remand, the Director must issue a new NOIR specifying the facts and evidence supporting 
the proposed revocation grounds. At the Director's discretion, the new NOIR may also allege 
additional revocation grounds supported by the record. 
The Director must afford the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to respond to the new NOIR. See 
8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b ). Upon receipt of a timely response, the Director should review the entire record 
and enter a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2 The decision apparently refers to the spouse of the petitioning corporation's sole shareholder. 
3