remanded EB-3 Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I- LTD. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 7, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of information technology consulting services, requested the Beneficiary's 
classification under the third-preference, immigrant category as a skilled worker. See 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" classification allows a U.S. business to sponsor a foreign national for 
lawful permanent resident status to work in a job requiring at least two years of training or 
expenence. 
After the Director of the Texas Service Center approved the petition, the employer listed on the 
accompanying certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) filed an amended petition 
seeking to substitute its name onto the initial petition. The labor certification employer asserted that 
a "scrivener's error in counsel's case management system" caused the initial Form 1-140 to 
misidentify the Petitioner - the parent company of the labor certification employer - as the petitioner. 
The labor certification employer stated that, contrary to the information on the Form 1-140, the 
employer - not its parent company - intends to employ the Beneficiary in the offered position of 
technology lead. 
The Director found that, before the initial petition's filing, the labor certification accompanying the 
petitions had expired. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(b)(l) (stating that a labor certification expires if not 
filed with an immigrant petition within 180 calendar days of certification). The Director therefore 
revoked the initial petition's approval, invalidated the labor certification, and denied the amended 
petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(i) (stating that a skilled worker petition must generally include a 
valid, individual labor certification). The labor certification employer filed motions to reconsider the 
decisions on both the initial and amended petitions. The Director issued a decision denying one of 
the motions. 
The Director's decision, however, does not clearly indicate which of the motions he denied. The 
decision cites the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) receipt number of the motion 
regarding the amended petition. But the decision discusses facts relating only to the initial petition. 
Also, the record lacks a decision on the second motion. Because the decision does not specify to 
which motion it applies, we cannot properly review the denial. We will therefore withdraw the 
decision and remand the matter. 
Matter of I- Ltd. 
On remand, the Director should review the entire record and issue a new decision on each motion. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of new 
decisions consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter off-Ltd., ID# 5845445 (AAO Oct. 7, 2019) 
2