remanded EB-3 Case: Housekeeping

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 20612747 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 23, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a housekeeping supervisor. It requests classification 
of the Beneficiary under the third-preference, immigrant classification for skilled workers. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3 )(A)(i). This 
employment-based, "EB-3" category allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a worker for lawful permanent 
resident status who is capable of performing skilled labor that requires at least two years education, 
training, or experience. After initially approving the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker 
(petition), the Nebraska Service Center Director revoked the petition's approval. The Director 
concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate the bonafides of the job opportunity . 
In these proceedings, it is the filing party's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by 
a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec . 369,375 (AAO 2010) . We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of 
Christo 's Inc ., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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 usually follows a three-step process. First, to permanently fill a 
position in the United States with a foreign worker , a prospective employer must obtain certification 
from the U.S. Department of Labor. See section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5). If the 
Department of Labor 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). Section 204 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1154. IfUSCIS grants a petition, a designated noncitizen may finally 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. 
"[A]t any time" before a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence, USCIS may revoke a 
petition's approval for "good and sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1155. USCIS 
may issue a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) a petition's approval if the unexplained and unrebutted 
record at the time of the notice's issuance would have warranted the petition's denial. Matter of 
Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450,451 (BIA 1987). If a petitioner's NOIR response does not overcome the 
stated revocation grounds, USCIS may revoke a petition's approval. Id. at 451-52. 
II. THE BONA FIDES OF THE JOB OPPORTUNITY 
By itself, the Director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
590 (BIA 1988); Matter of Ma, 22 I&N Dec. 67, 68-69 (BIA 1998). The approval of a visa petition 
does not vest any rights in the filing party of a petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a 
preliminary step in the visa application process. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 589. 
The issue in this appeal relates to whether the Director properly revoked the petition approval. The 
Director approved the petition in 2009. After the Beneficiary attended a visa interview with a U.S. 
Department of State consular officer, USCIS performed two site visits in 2019 at the location listed 
on the petition and on the Department of State ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent 
Employment Certification. Those site visits resulted in adverse information prompting the Director 
to issue a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the petition's approval in January of 2021. 
Within the NOIR, the Director described the results of the site visit, including that the Petitioner did 
not employ any housekeepers on a full-time basis. The Director surmised with only temporary 
employees, it appeared "that there are no employees for the beneficiary to supervise and therefore 
there is no position for the beneficiary to fill." The Director further indicated it did "not appear that 
the job as described on the labor certificate exists." Finally, the Director indicated the Petitioner must 
demonstrate the ability to pay the Beneficiary's wage from the date it filed the petition until he attains 
lawful permanent resident status. 
The Petitioner responded to the NOIR claiming its personnel were not listed on its payroll as they were 
working as independent contractors and two of those individuals were working full time, albeit not as 
employees. The Petitioner contested the allegation that it did not have personnel for the Beneficiary 
to supervise. The Director determined the NOIR response was not sufficient to overcome the grounds 
listed in the notice and it revoked the approval. Within the revocation, the Director indicated the 
Petitioner sufficiently addressed the ability to pay issue but revoked the petition's approval concluding 
the job offered was not a bona fide position that was available to U.S. workers. In making that 
determination, the Director relied on information contained within the materials the Petitioner 
provided in the NOIR response. The issue here is the Director relied on newly submitted information 
to revoke the approval, but they did not include those factual allegations in the NOIR. In other words, 
the Director revoked the petition's approval on adverse information that the Petitioner did not have an 
opportunity to address. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) determined that"[ a] decision to revoke approval of a 
visa petition can only be grounded upon ... the factual allegations specified in the notice of intention 
to revoke." Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568, 570 (BIA 1988). Good and sufficient cause to revoke 
an approved petition means the evidence in the record at the time of the decision, including exp lanatmy 
and rebuttal evidence, warrants a denial based on the petitioner's failure to sustain its burden of 
proof. MatterofR. I. Ortega, 28I&NDec. 9, 10 (BIA2020) (citingEstime, 19 I&NDec. at451-52). 
A "notice of intention to revoke must include a specific statement of the facts and evidence underlying 
2 
the proposed action, and the petitioner must be given an opportunity to counter such facts and 
evidence." Arias, 19 I&N Dec. at 570 n.4 (BIA 1988). "Where a notice of intention to revoke is 
[ served and] ... the petitioner is unaware and has not been advised of derogatory evidence, revocation 
of the visa petition cannot be sustained. Es time, 19 I&N Dec. at 452. 
In the interest of due process and fairness, petitioners must be afforded the appropriate opportunity to 
advocate for and demonstrate eligibility. Including adverse reasons in a final revocation notice that 
were not detailed within the NOIR is not a proper method to revoke a petition's approval. Estime, 
19 I&N Dec. at 452;R. I. Ortega, 28 I&N Dec. at 10. In the same manner that filing parties must 
adhere to the process and procedural requirements specified in the Act and the regulations, so must 
we as government representatives. While the public "must turn square corners when they deal with 
the Government [citation omitted]. . . . it is also true [] that 'the Government should turn square 
corners in dealing with the people."' Dep 'tofHomeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 
140 S. Ct. 1891, 1909 (2020) (quoting St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U.S. 208,229 (1961) 
(Black, J., dissenting)). 
Although the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility, the Director's decision did not comply with 
the regulation pertaining to revocations. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Director did not properly revoke the approved petition as it contained adverse elements not 
included in the NOIR. This did not afford the Petitioner the opportunity of addressing the issues 
presented in the final revocation. We will remand the matter to the Director to issue a new NOIR in 
accordance with the applicable provisions. 
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. 
3