remanded EB-3 Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF U-F-0-B-C-0-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 28, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a preschool day care and learning center, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a day care 
group teacher. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a professional under the third preference 
immigration category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to 
sponsor a professional with a baccalaureate degree for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition. The Director subsequently 
revoked the approval on multiple grounds and invalidated the underlying labor certification with a 
finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
On appeaL the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was based on a series of factual and 
legal errors. The Petitioner submits additional evidence and requests that the approval of the petition 
be reinstated. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the case for fm1her 
consideration. 
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). 1 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 U.S. workers similarly employed. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(TI) 
of the Act. Second, the employer tiles 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 USC IS 
1 
The date the labor certification is filed at the DOL is called the "priority date." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). The Petitioner 
must establish that all eligibility requirements for the petition have been satisfied from the priority date onward. 
.
Matter of U-F-0-B-C-0- . Inc. 
approves the petition, the foreign national applies 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 the Department of 
Homeland Security] may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the 
approval of any petition approved by him under section 204 [Procedure for Granting Immigrant 
Status]." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a) provides that "[any USCIS] otlicer authorized to 
approve a petition under section 204 of the Act may revoke the approval of that petition upon notice 
to the petitioner ... when the necessity for the revocation comes to the attention of[USCIS].'' 
II. ANALYSIS 
At issue in this case is whether the Director's decision to revoke the approval of the petition and 
invalidate the underlying labor certification was proper and well-grounded. After issuing a notice of 
intent to revoke (NOIR) 2 and considering the Petitioner's response , the Director revoked the 
petition's approval on multiple grounds, enumerated below. The Director also invalidated the labor 
certification based on a finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. As discussed 
below, we find that the reasons for revocation articulated in the Director's decision are not supported 
by the record. Likewise, the finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation was not sutliciently 
articulated in the decision. As such, we will withdraw the Director"s findings and remand the matter 
for further consideration. 
The first reason given for revocation was that on the Form G-28 , Notice of Appearance as Attorney 
or Accredited Representative, neither the signatory ' nor the firm entered 
thereon 1 was listed in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Oftice 
for Immigration Review (EOIR) Recognition & Accreditation (R&A) program. The Petitioner 
acknowledges that neither individually nor as an 
organization was authorized to appear in this proceeding as an accredited representative with the 
EOIR's R&A program. However, neither nor claimed to be an 
accredited representative in the R&A program. On the Form G-28 stated that he was a 
civic leader of a Filipino community organization in Though neither the individual 
nor the organization was authorized to represent the Petitioner in this proceeding , no willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact can be imputed to the Petitioner because an improperly tiled 
2 On appeal the Petitioner points out several errors in the NOIR which seemed to indicate that the Director was confusing 
the petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary with another petition filed by the Petitioner. In addition to mis-identifying 
the proper beneficiary in the heading of the NOIR. the NOIR also cited a "New York, Department of Health ' s Staff 
Credentials Approval Letter" which does not appear anywhere in the record. The missing letter. according to the 
Director, referred to the Beneficiary's prospective employment as a "'Study Plan Teacher·· and identified the proffered 
position on the labor certification as a "Head /Group Teacher" or "Teacher /Director. '' None of these job titles accords 
with the one on the labor certification in this proceeding, which is day care group teacher. The Director corrected these 
mistakes in the revocation decision by properly identifying the Beneficiary in the heading and dropping the above cited 
letter as a ground for revocation. but did not explain how these items appeared in the NOIR to begin with. 
2 
.
Matter of U-F-0-B-C-0- . Inc. 
Form G-28 does not invalidate or call into question the accompanying petition. which can simply be 
treated as a prose tiling. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 1 03.2(a)(3). 
The Director next found that the signatory of the Form G-28. is a local tax preparer 
and the address of is a residential home. This finding, however, provides no 
substantive basis to revoke the approval of the petition. As discussed above, the Form G-28 itself is 
not material to the adjudication of this petition. Furthermore, the Director has not explained how 
status as a tax preparer and the operation of his civic organization from residential 
property signals a misrepresentation of any material fact in this proceeding. 
Third. the Director found that the Beneficiary did not appear to meet the educational requirements of 
the job offered. To be eligible for approvaL the Beneficiary must have all the education. training, 
experience, and other requirements specified on the labor certification as of the petition's priority 
date - in this case, October 19, 2007. See Matter (?l Wing ·s Tea House. 16 J&N Dec. 158, 159 
(Acting Reg'! Comm'r 1977). The labor certification in this case requires a bachelor's degree in 
early childhood, elementary , or secondary education , or a foreign educational equivalent, at least 24 
months of experience in early childhood education, and a teacher's license or N/PreK-6 evaluation 
by the New York State Education Department. The Director found that the where 
the Beneficiary earned his bachelor of elementary education degree, did not appear to be accredited 
and therefore concluded that the Beneficiary"s education was not qualifying. However, the 
Petitioner submitted evidence, including a credential evaluation from 
that was submitted in response to the NOIR. that the is recognized by 
the Republic of the Philippines' Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and that its bachelor of 
elementary education program in particular was recognized in 1993. well before the Beneficiary 
earned his degree. 3 See also AACRAO EDGE , http:/ , 
Fourth, the Director stated that the original educational evaluation from 
was "invalid" because it contained no information about the evaluator's credentials 
and was not a member of Neither of these shortcomings renders the evaluation 
"invalid" per se, though they would certainly be a factor in the evidentiary weight USCIS may wish 
to give it. See Matter o.lCaron International , 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988): Matter (~lD-R-, 25 
I&N Dec. 445 (BJA 2011). Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted the evaluator's credentials 
and a new credential evaluation from in response to the NOIR . Both evaluations conclude 
that the Beneficiary's bachelor's degree from the Philippines is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree. 
3 In his revocation decision , the Director discounted the credential evaluation from because it post-dated the 
filing of the petition in 2008. However , the Director's rationale for discounting the evaluation of the 
accreditation status was incorrect because the crucial question in this proceeding is whether the school's 
bachelor of elementary education program was recognized by before the Beneficiary earned his degree , not 
whether evaluation report post-dated the filing of the petition 
.
Matter of U-F-0-B-C-0- . Inc. 
Fifth, the Director found that the address of is an apartment complex, not a business. The 
Director did not articulate how this fact impacts the Beneficiary's eligibility, however, or how it 
provides any substantive basis to revoke the approval of the petition. Akin to our discussion of the 
Form G-28, the Director has not explained how the fact that may operate out of a residential 
address rather than a commercial address impacts the credibility of its evaluation or signals a 
misrepresentation of any material fact in this proceeding. 
Sixth, the Director found that the proffered position did not appear to be a bona fide job oiler. 
However, the Director did not support this conclusion with any substantive analysis. There is 
considerable evidence that the Petitioner has employed the Beneficiary since 2007, none of which 
was discussed by the Director. The only item in the record that appears to cast doubt on the nature 
of the Beneficiary's employment is the "New York, Department of Health's Staff Credentials 
Approval Letter" which was listed in the NOIR because it indicated that the job was a "Study Plan 
Teacher" rather than the job described on the labor certification. That ground appears to have been 
mistaken, however , and was not included in the revocation decision . Thus , it is unclear why the 
Director found no bonafide job offer by the Petitioner. 
Finally, the Director also stated that because USCIS was unable to verify the existence of the nursery 
school where the Beneficiary claimed to have worked in the years 2003-2007, the Beneficiary did 
not meet the experience requirements of the labor certification. However, the Director did not give 
the Petitioner notice of this potential ground of revocation in the NOIR and therefore it cannot form 
the basis ofrevocation. See Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568, 570 (BIA 1988): Matter (?fEstime, 
1 9 I&N Dec. 450, 452 (BIA 1987). In sum, none of the grounds for revocation cited by the Director 
may stand as they are insufficiently supported by the record, immaterial to eligibility, or 
procedurally incorrect. 
Regarding the Director's finding of"fraud or willful misrepresentation," the Director's decision does 
not provide a persuasive rationale for making this ti.nding or invalidating the labor certification. A 
labor certification is subject to invalidation by USCIS "upon a determination ... of fraud or willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact involving the labor certification application." 20 C.F.R. 
§ 565.30(d). The Director's revocation decision does not identify any specific actions by the 
Petitioner or the Beneficiary which constitute fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact in 
the labor certification process. As such, we withdraw this finding and reinstate the validity of the 
labor certification . 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although we find that the Director's decision to revoke the petition's approval and invalidate the 
labor certification was deficient, the record does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. On remand, the Director shall determine whether the diploma and transcripts 
submitted as evidence of the Beneficiary 's degrees from the are authentic , and 
whether they indicate that the Beneficiary meets the minimum educational requirements of the labor 
certification. In addition , the Director shall determine whether the Beneficiary has the qualifying 
4 
Matter of U-F-0-B-C-0-. Inc. 
experience required by the labor certification in view of the additional documentation submitted on 
appeal. The Director shall also determine whether the Beneficiary meets the other requirements 
listed in box H. 14 of the labor certification- specifically, a teacher's license or N/PreK-6 evaluation 
by the New York State Education Department. In his discretion, the Director may request additional 
evidence on these and any other issues that may be deemed important. 
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{U-F-0-B-C-0-. Inc., ID# 869353 (AAO Feb. 28, 2018)