remanded EB-3 Case: Healthcare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 11, 2024 In Re: 32130492 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Skilled Worker) 
The Petitioner, a non-profit healthcare system, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a registered nurse. 
The company requests her classification under the employment-based, third-preference (EB-3) 
immigrant visa category as a "skilled worker." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(3)(A)(i). Organizations may sponsor noncitizens for permanent 
residence in this category to work in jobs requiring at least two years of training or experience. Id. 
After first granting the filing, the Director of the Nebraska Service Center revoked the petition's 
approval. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not respond to the Director's notice of intent 
to revoke (NOIR) the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that it timely responded to the 
notice. 
In revocation proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofHo, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 589 (BIA 1988) ( citation omitted). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that the organization has demonstrated its timely NOIR response. We will 
therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Immigration as a skilled worker usually follows a three-step process. First, to pennanently fill a U.S. 
job with a foreign worker, a prospective employer must obtain 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). If DOL 
approves a job, an employer must next submit the certified labor application with an immigrant visa 
petition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Section 204(a)(l)(F) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 154(a)(l)(F). Finally, ifUSCIS grants a petition, a noncitizen beneficiary may apply 
abroad for an immigrant visa or, if eligible, for adjustment of status in the United States. See section 
245 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
DOL, however, has already determined that the United States lacks sufficient nurses and that 
noncitizens' employment in these "Schedule A" positions will not harm the wages or working 
conditions of U.S. workers in similar positions. 20 C.F.R. § 656.5. Thus, Schedule A petitioners need 
not advertise their jobs to U.S. workers in DOL labor certification proceedings. Rather, DOL 
authorizes users to adjudicate Schedule A labor certification applications in immigrant visa petition 
proceedings. 20 C.F.R. § 656.15(a). Therefore, in this matter, users rules not only on the immigrant 
visa petition, but also on its accompanying labor certification application. See 20 e.F.R. 
§ 656.15( e) ( describing USeTS labor certification determinations in Schedule A proceedings as 
"conclusive and final"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
"[A]t any time" before a beneficiary obtains permanent residence, users may revoke a petition's 
approval "for good and sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.e. § 1155. Unless a petition 
is automatically revocable under 8 e.F.R. § 205 .1 ( a )(3 )(iii), users must notify a petitioner of alleged 
revocation grounds and give the filer an opportunity to submit evidence supporting the petition and 
opposing the revocation grounds. 8 e.F.R. § 205.2(a), (b). 
USeTS properly issues a NOTR if the unexplained and unrebutted record at the time of the notice's 
issuance would have warranted the petition's denial. Matter ofEstime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 451 (BIA 
1987). If a petitioner does not timely respond to a NOTR or the response does not overcome the listed 
revocation grounds, users may revoke a petition's approval. Id. at 452. 
The Petitioner filed this petition on November 3, 2023. Five days later, users approved it. On 
November 14, 2023, users issued the NOIR. The NOIR alleges that the bank upon which the 
Petitioner's checks for filing and "premium processing" fees 1 were drawn did not honor the payments. 
The notice states that users would revoke the petition's approval unless, by December 17, 2023, the 
Petitioner paid a service fee and submitted proof that the bank fulfilled the payments. See 8 e.F .R. 
§ 106.1( c)(2) (allowing users to revoke a petition's approval if a bank does not honor the filing's fee 
payment). users records do not show the Director's receipt of a NOIR response by December 17, 
2023. The Director therefore revoked the petition's approval on January 11, 2024. 
The record supports the Director's proper issuance of the NOIR. users records do not show the 
Petitioner's submission of a NOIR response. The response's omission would have warranted the 
petition's revocation. See Matter ofEstime, 19 I&N Dec. at 452. Thus, the Director properly issued 
the NOIR. 
On appeal, however, the Petitioner submits evidence that it timely responded to the NOIR. The 
Petitioner provides copies of a courier company's online tracking receipt, referencing the petition and 
showing the package's November 29, 2023 receipt at the service center's premium processing unit. A 
copy of the Petitioner's NOIR response shows that it included: copies of the fronts and banks of the 
organization's fee checks showing the bank's November 7, 2023 payment of them; proof of the 
organization's payment of the service fee; and copies of a November 23, 2023 e-mail exchange 
between counsel and a representative of the premium processing unit. 
1 In exchange for additional fees, certain petitioners may request premium processing of their petitions within 15 business 
days of the filings. 8 C.F.R. § 106.4(a),(b). 
2 
Contrary to the Director's revocation decision, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates the 
Petitioner's timely response to the NOIR. We will therefore withdraw the decision. 
The Director did not have an opportunity to review the Petitioner's NOTR response. We will therefore 
remand the matter. On remand, the Director should review the entire record, including the 
organization's NOIR response, and enter a new decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's timely response to the Director's 
NOIR. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3