remanded EB-3 Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-C-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 24 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , a professional consulting services company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an IT 
project specialist. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third 
preference immigrant classification. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based immigrant 
classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status 
to work in a position that requires at least two years of training or experience. 
The petition was initially approved. The Director of the Texas Service Center subsequently revoked 
the approval of the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish (a) that a bona fide job 
offer existed; (b) that the Beneficiary had the experience required for the offered job; and ( c) that it 
had the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward. The Director 
entered a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact against the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary, and he invalidated the labor certification. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it did not properly receive the 
notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) outlining all of the grounds for revocation. It also asserts that a bona 
fide job offer existed; that the Beneficiary bad the experience required for the offered job; and ( c) that 
it bad the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward. It further asserts 
that there were no willful misrepresentations made by the Petitioner or the Beneficiary. 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further 
proceedings consistent with our opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
1 The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.30( d) provides , in pertinent part: 
Invalidation of labor certifications. After issuance, a labor certification may be revoked by ET A using 
the procedures described in Sec. 656.32. Additionally , after issuance, a labor certification is subject to 
invalidation by the OHS or by a Consul of the Department of State upon a determination , made in 
accordance with those agencies' procedures or by a court, of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a 
material fact involving the labor certification application . 
Matter of B-C-, Inc. 
I. THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION PROCESS 
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).2 See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(a)(5)(A)(i). 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)-(II) 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 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. 
II. REVOCATION OF A PETITION'S APPROVAL 
After granting a petition, USCIS may revoke the petition's approval "at any time" for "good and 
sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155. If supported by the record, a director's 
realization that a petition was erroneously approved may justify revocation. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
Good and sufficient cause exists to issue a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) where the record at the 
time of the notice's issuance, if unexplained or unrebutted, would have warranted the petition's denial. 
Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 451 (BIA 1987). Similarly, revocation is proper if the record at 
the time of the decision, including any explanation or rebuttal evidence provided by a petitioner, 
warranted a petition's denial. Id. at 452. 
In this case, the Director issued an NOIR dated February 21, 2019, to the Petitioner's counsel. It 
detailed the following reasons why the Director intended to revoke the approval of the petition: (a) a 
bona fide job offer never existed; (b) the Beneficiary does not have the experience required for the 
offered job; ( c) the Petitioner does not have the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the 
priority date onward; and ( d) the Petitioner and the Beneficiary willfully misrepresented a material 
fact on the labor certification. The NOIR indicated that the Director intended to invalidate the labor 
certification based on the willful misrepresentations. The Director also stated that since the Petitioner 
may not be aware of the derogatory information contained in the NOIR, he was "affording the 
petitioner an opportunity to rebut that information and present information in its own behalf" 3 The 
February 21, 2019, NOIR was returned to USCIS by the postal service as undeliverable. The Director 
issued a notice of revocation (NOR) on April 16, 2019, which mirrored the grounds of revocation 
detailed in the February 21, 2019, NOIR. The Director indicated in the NOR that it did not receive a 
response to the February 21, 2019, NOIR from the Petitioner. 
2 The priority date of a petition is the date the DOL accepted the labor certification for processing, which in this case is 
March 16, 2017. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(d). 
3 A petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to review all derogatory information considered by the Director before a 
decision is rendered. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i). 
2 
Matter of B-C-, Inc. 
However, on appeal, the Petitioner's counsel states that she never received the February 21, 2019, 
NOIR. She states that on March 15, 2019, she received an email message from USCIS indicating that 
the NOIR was returned to USCIS as undeliverable. Counsel indicates that on the same day, she 
contacted USCIS and requested that the NOIR be resent. On appeal, counsel submits a copy of an 
NOIR dated November 19, 2018, that was mailed to her by USCIS on April 3, 2019. Counsel also 
submits the postmarked envelope that contained the NOIR. The November 19, 2018, NOIR does not 
match the February 21, 2019, NOIR detailed above. Instead, the November 19, 2018, NOIR listed 
only one ground for revocation: that the Petitioner interviewed the Beneficiary for the offered job, and 
offered her the job, prior to recruitment for the job. Therefore, the NOIR indicated that the "job was 
created specifically for [the Beneficiary]" and that USCIS had sent the Petitioner a NOIR "on October 
25, 2018, which states the reasons for which we intend to revoke the approval of this Form 1-140 
petition." The record does not contain an NOIR dated October 25, 2018. 
The February 21, 2019, NOIR sufficiently detailed the evidence of the record that, if unexplained and 
unrebutted, would warrant a denial. However, the record shows that the Petitioner did not receive the 
February 21, 2019, NOIR. Instead, it received a different NOIR dated November 19, 2018. The 
November 19, 2018, NOIR did not sufficiently detail the grounds for revocation of the petition's 
approval. Thus, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for issuance of a new 
NOIR. 
On remand, the Director should issue a new NOIR which provides the Petitioner with adequate notice 
of all proposed grounds for revocation of the approved petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The decision of the Director will be withdrawn. The matter is remanded to the Director for issuance 
of a new NOIR. Upon receipt of a response to the NOIR, the Director will review the entire record 
and enter a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for farther 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion. 
Cite as Matter of B-C-, Inc., ID# 6319672 (AAO Sept. 24, 2019) 
3