remanded EB-3 Case: Food Service

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 00597076 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for an Alien Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 4, 2021 
The Petitioner, a limited service restaurant, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a pizza cook. It requests 
classification for the Beneficiary as an "other worker" under the third preference immigrant category. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(3)(A)(iii), 8 U.S .C. § ll 53(b )(3)(A)(iii) . 
This employment-based "EB-3" immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor for lawful 
permanent resident status a foreign national who is capable of performing unskilled labor that requires 
less than two years of training or experience and is not of a temporary or seasonal nature. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition on the ground that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary met the educational requirement of the labor certification because the 
Petitioner did not submit properly certified English translations of the foreign educational documents. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits additional documentation which overcomes the Director's finding on 
the translation issue. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision. However, the Director 
did not address all possible issues in the initial adjudication ofthis petition. Therefore, we will remand 
the case for further consideration of the petition 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) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5) . 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)-(11) 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(3) provides that: 
Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied 
by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and 
accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As previously indicated, the Petitioner requests classification of the Beneficiary as an "other worker." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(D) states that: 
If the petition is for an unskilled ( other) worker, it must be accompanied by evidence 
that the alien meets any educational, training and experience, and other requirements 
of the labor certification. 
All requirements must be met by the petition's priority date, 1 which in this case is April 2, 2015. See 
Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
The labor certification in this case indicates (in section H) that the only qualification for the job of 
pizza cook is a high school level education or a foreign educational equivalent. The labor certification 
also asserts (in section J) that the Beneficiary met this requirement by graduating in 1997 from I I 
High School inl I Iran. 
With its initial evidence the Petitioner submitted copies of Farsi and English language documents 
relating to the Beneficiary's alleged high school education in I I Iran, which appeared to indicate 
that he completed his education at I IHigh School after passing his final examinations 
in December 1995, and received a completion certificate in the field of mathematics and physics. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) indicating, among other things, that the translations 
of the foreign language documentation submitted with the petition did not comply with applicable 
requirements including certification by the translator that: 
• the translation is accurate and complete, and 
• he/she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
The Director noted that the translator must personally certify the English translation, that another 
individual could not certify on behalf of the translator. As the English versions of the foreign language 
documents did not comply with these translation requirements, the Director advised the Petitioner to 
resubmit the foreign language documents with properly certified English translations attached. The 
Director also requested that an evaluation of the Beneficiary's education be submitted to establish its 
U.S. equivalency. 
In response to the RFE the Petitioner submitted copies of its original documents plus additional Farsi 
and English language documents as evidence of the Beneficiary's education in Iran. The materials 
1 The priority date of an employment-based immigrant petition is the date the underlying labor certification is filed with 
the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(d). 
2 
include Farsi and English language versions of the Beneficiary's high school transcripts and 
graduation certificate. The English language documents each bear an official stamp of I I 
I I Official English Translator to the Judiciary, License No. 9991 t The Farsi 
language documents each bear a stamp from I I stating "Certified True Copy,I I 
I l Licence No. 999, Official Translator to the Iranian Judiciary." The Petitioner also 
submitted a copy of a document in Farsi and English identifying! I as a 
"Certified English Translator to the Judiciary of LR.I. [Islamic Republic of Iran]." Finally, the 
Petitioner submitted an evaluation of the Beneficiary's education by Silvergate Evaluations Inc. which 
stated that I I High School is a government-recognized institution of secondary 
education in Iran, and that the Beneficiary's graduation certificate from that school after four years of 
course work is equivalent to a high school diploma in the United States. 
In his decision the Director pointed to the English translations of the Beneficiary's high school 
graduation certificate which bear official stamps of the Islamic Republic of Iran stating that: "[t]his 
certification does not include confirmation of the accuracy of the translation" and "[ t ]he authenticity 
of the seal & signature marked (X) is certified without any consideration to the contents." The Director 
stated that the English translations were not properly certified because the translator did not certify the 
accuracy and completeness of the translated documents or his competency to translate from the foreign 
language into English. The Director also discussed the document identifying I I 
I I as a certified English translator to the Judiciary of LR.I. and stating that the validity of a 
sealed (stamped) document shall be subject to (1) certification of attached copies by the seal and 
signature of the translator, (2) non-alteration and/or obliteration of the translated text, and (3) 
intactness of the seal. The Director noted that this document was not signed by the I I did 
not state that the translations of the Beneficiary's educational documents were accurate and complete, 
and did not state that the translator was competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
The Director concluded that the English translations of the Beneficiary's educational documents did 
not comply with the substantive requirements of 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b )(3) and therefore did not establish 
that the Beneficiary meets the educational requirement the labor certification. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Director misinterpreted the signature requirement as applying 
to the Beneficiary's license rather than the documents he translates. 2 The Petitioner points out that 
every English translation submitted in this proceeding contains the translator's signature, next to a 
seal with printed language identifyin~ I as an Official English Translator to 
The Judiciary. In support of the appeal the Petitioner submits a copy of the official translation license 
granted tol I by The Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran in October 
2014. In addition the Petitioner submits a statement from the translator,! I confirming 
that he is an official translator approved by the Iranian Department of Justice, that his license allows 
him to use the seal to certify his document translations as accurate, and that the documents he translated 
in this proceeding are "a true, accurate and complete translation of the Farsi text and figures into 
English." These two documents, together with the translator's seal and signature on each translation, 
satisfy the specific requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) because they certify thatl Is 
2 We note that the Director's focus on the official stamps of the Islamic Republic oflran on the English translation of the 
Beneficiary's graduation certificate was misdirected because those stamps only applied to the authenticity of the 
translator's seal and did not purport to pass judgment on the accuracy or completeness of the translation. 
3 
English translations are complete and accurate, and that he is competent to translate from Farsi into 
English. 
Based on the entire record, we conclude that the translations of the Beneficiary's educational 
documents submitted in this proceeding meet the substantive requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's contrary finding. We cannot approve the petition, 
however, because the Director did not adjudicate all potential issues in his decision. 
In the RFE the Director requested documentary evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered 
wage, and the Petitioner responded with various documents. While these materials would appear to 
establish the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage of the instant Beneficiary, USCIS records 
show that the Petitioner has submitted many additional I-140 petitions for other beneficiaries. When a 
petitioner has filed multiple I-140 petitions it must establish that its job offer is realistic not only for 
the instant beneficiary, but also for the beneficiaries of its other I-140 petitions. A petitioner's ability 
to pay the proffered wage is an essential element in evaluating whether a job offer is realistic. See 
Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). Accordingly, a petitioner must 
demonstrate its ability to pay the combined proffered wages of the instant beneficiary and every other 
I-140 beneficiary from the priority date of the instant petition until the other I-140 beneficiaries obtain 
lawful permanent resident status. See Patel v. Johnson, 2 F. Supp. 3d 108, 124 (D. Mass. 2014) 
(upholding our denial of a petition where a petitioner did not demonstrate its ability to pay multiple 
beneficiaries). 3 The Director did not address this issue in his decision. 
In addition, the Director may wish to examine whether the pizza cook position in this petition is a 
bona fide job offer. A petitioner must establish its intent to employ the beneficiary in accordance with 
the terms and conditions of the labor certification. See Matter of Izdebska, 12 I&N Dec. 54 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1966). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we will remand this case to the Director for further consideration. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3 The Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage of one of the other 1-140 beneficiaries is not considered: 
• After the other beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence; 
• If an 1-140 petition filed on behalf of the other beneficiary has been withdrawn, revoked, or denied without a 
pending appeal or motion; or 
• Before the priority date of the 1-140 petition filed on behalf of the other beneficiary. 
4