remanded EB-3 Case: Meat Market

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 21, 2024 In Re: 34834227 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Other Worker) 
The Petitioner, a meat market operator, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a butcher. The company 
requests his classification under the employment-based, third-preference (EB-3) immigrant visa 
category as an "other worker." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(3)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(iii). Businesses may sponsor noncitizens for U.S. 
permanent residence in this category to work in jobs requiring less than two years of training or 
experience. Id. 
After first granting the filing, the Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the petition's approval 
and dismissed the Petitioner's following combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The Director 
concluded that the company sent its motions to the wrong U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) location. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that USCIS received the papers at the correct 
address. 
In revocation proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested 
benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 589 (BIA 1988). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that the company has established that it submitted its motions to the designated 
USCIS address. We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary decision and remand the matter 
for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Immigration as an other - or "unskilled" - worker generally follows a three-step process. First, a 
prospective employer must obtain certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that: there 
are insufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, and available for an offered job; and a noncitizen's 
permanent employment in the position would not harm wages and working conditions of U.S. workers 
with similar jobs. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). 
Second, an employer must submit a DOL-approved labor certification with an immigrant visa petition 
to USCIS. Section 204(a)(l)(F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(F). Among other things, USCIS 
determines whether a noncitizen beneficiary meets the requirements of a DOL-certified position and 
a requested immigrant visa category. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(D). 
Finally, if users approves a petition, a beneficiary may apply 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. 
But, "at 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.C. § 1155. A petition's 
erroneous approval may justify its revocation. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 590. 
II. ANALYSIS 
After receiving a revocation notice, a petitioner may file a motion to reopen, a motion to reconsider, 
or both. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) (incorporating the 
instructions of Form 1-
290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, into the regulations). A petitioner must generally file motions 
within 33 days of the date of the adverse decision's mailing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.8(b )(1) (adding three days to the prescribed 30-day period when USCIS serves a revocation by 
mail). USCIS will not assign filing dates to motions until the Agency receives the benefit request "at 
the location designated for filing." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7). 
The Director revoked the approval of the Petitioner's petition on March 25, 2024, sending the written 
revocation decision to the company by mail. Thus, the company had to file its combined motions 
within the 33-day period ending April 29, 2024. 1 
The Petitioner sent its motions via a commercial overnight delivery service on April 24, 2024. USCIS 
records show that the Agency timely received them, issuing a receipt notice with an April 26, 2024 
filing date. The Director, however, dismissed the motions, concluding that the company sent them to 
the wrong USCIS address. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7) (requiring USCIS' receipt of benefit requests 
"at the location designated for filing"). 
The revocation decision notified the Petitioner about its ability to file motions. In relevant part, the 
decision advised: "For the latest information on filing location, fee, and other requirements, please 
review the Form 1-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms, call our USCIS Contact Center 
at 1-800-375-5283, or visit your local USCIS office." 
The Petitioner states that it found the motions' filing location by visiting the USCIS online address 
listed in the revocation decision. The company provided a June 25, 2024 printout of the website's 
pages, designating the motions' correct filing location as the USCIS Phoenix Lockbox in Arizona. See 
USCIS, "Direct Filing Addresses for Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion," www.uscis.gov/i-
290b-addresses ("Decision made by USCIS on any other kind of application," "Decision made by a 
USCIS service center on a form not listed in any section of the chart above"). Our research shows that 
the Agency website listed the same filing location on April 24, 2024, when the Petitioner sent its 
1 Because the thirty-third day fell on a Saturday, the period extended two days until the next business day. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1.2 ( defining the te1m "day"). 
2 
motions. Also a copy of tracking information from the commercial overnight delivery service 
indicates the motions' April 26, 2024 delivery to the designated lockbox. 
A preponderance of the evidence - including the filing location on the USCIS website, the delivery 
tracking information, and USCIS records indicating the Agency's issuance of a receipt notice -
demonstrates the Petitioner's filing of its combined motions at the location designated for filing. We 
will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary decision. 
The Director did not rule on the merits of the Petitioner's motions. Rather than consider the filings' 
substance in the first instance, we will remand the matter. 
On remand, the Director must consider the motions as filed at the correct location. Assuming the 
motions meet remaining regulatory requirements, the Director should consider their merits and issue 
a new decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has demonstrated its filing of its combined motions at the designated USCIS location. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis, which - if adverse to the Petitioner -
shall be certified to us for review. 
3