remanded EB-3 Case: Insurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-A-C-P-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 30,2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an insurance agency, seeks to employ the. Beneficiary as an insurance clerk. It 
requests his classification as an "other worker" under the third-preference, immigrant category. 
Immigration and Nationality Act, section 203(b)(3)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(iii). This 
category allows a U.S. business to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status as 
an unskilled worker. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate its required ability to pay the proffered wage. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, contends that the Director misapplied relevant 
factors and disregarded evidence, and asserts its ability to pay the proffered wage. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for further 
proceedings consistent with the following opinion. 
I. ABILITY TO PAY THE PROFFERED WAGE 
A petitioner must demonstrate its continuing ability to pay a proffered wage, from a petition's 
priority date until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence.' 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(2). 
Evidence of ability to pay must include copies of annual reports, federal income tax returns, or 
audited financial statements. !d. 
As ofthe Director's decision and the appeal's filing, copies ofthe Petitioner's annual report, federal 
income tax returns, or audited financial statements for 2017, the year of the petition's filing, were 
not yet available. The Director therefore based his decision largely on financial documentation from 
2016. Required evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay in 2017 should soon be obtainable. We 
will therefore remand this matter. 
1 
This petition ·s priority date is January 5, 2017, the date the U.S. Department of Labor accepted the accompanying labor 
certification application for processing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( d) (explaining how to detennine a petition's priority date). 
Matter ofT-A-C-P-. Inc. 
On remand, the Director should request required evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay the 
proffered wage in 2017 and provide the Petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to respond. The 
Petitioner may also submit other evidence of its ability to pay, including evidence in support of the 
factors stated in Matter (~fSonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612, 614-15 (Reg'! Comm'r 1967). 
II. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED EXPERIENCE 
Although unaddressed by the Director, the record also does not establish the Beneficiary's 
possession of the minimum experience required for the offered position. 
A petitioner must establish, by a petition's priority date, a beneficiary's possession of all job 
requirements stated on an accompanying labor certification. Matter (~l Wing's Tea House. 16 I&N 
Dec. 158, 160 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must examine the job offer portion of a certification 
to determine the minimum requirements of an offered position. USCIS may neither ignore a 
certification term, nor impose additional requirements. See Madany v. Smith, 696 F .2d 1008, 1015 
(D.C. Cir. 1983) (holding that the ''DOL bears the authority for determining the content of the labor 
certification") (emphasis in original). 
Here, the accompanying labor certification states the minimum requirements of the offered position 
of insurance clerk as a U.S. high school diploma or a foreign equivalent, plus six months of 
experience in the job offered or in "[a ]ny administrative position." Part H.l4 of the certification also 
requires "Reference/Background/Drug Test." 
The Beneficiary attested that, before the petition's priority date, he worked for two former employers 
in India, gaining a total of 11 months of full-time qualifying experience. The Petitioner submitted 
letters from the businesses stating their employment of the Beneficiary for the periods indicated and 
in the positions stated on the labor certification. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A) (requiring a 
petitioner to support a beneficiary's claimed, qualifying experience with letters from former 
employers). 
Contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A), however, the letters from the former employers do not 
describe the Beneficiary's experience. The letters therefore do not establish the Beneficiary's 
requisite experience in the job offered or in an administrative position. 
On remand, the Director should provide the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to submit additional 
evidence of the Beneficiary's claimed, qualifying experience for the offered position. Upon receipt 
of a timely response, the Director should review the entire record and enter a new decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As of the Director's decision and the appeal's filing, required evidence of the Petitioner's ability to 
pay the proffered wage from the petition's prior date onward was not yet available; we shall 
2 
Matter ofT-A-C-P-. Inc. 
therefore remand this matter to the Director for further consideration. On remand, the Director 
should also determine whether the Beneficiary has the experience required by the labor certification. 
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. 
Cite as Matter ofT-A-C-P-. Inc., ID# 1077546 (AAO Mar. 30, 2018) 
3