remanded EB-3 Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 1837732 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Other Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR . 21 , 2022 
The Petitioner , a hospital, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a registered nurse . It requests his 
classification under the third-preference, immigrant visa category for "other workers ." Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(3)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(3)(A)(iii). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition . The Petitioner bears the burden of 
establishing eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of evidence. See section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (discussing the burden of proof); see also Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 
369,375 (AAO 2010) (discussing the standard of proof) . 
Upon de novo review, we cannot determine the specific basis of the petition's denial. We will 
therefore 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 "other" or "unskilled" 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 (DOL) . See section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5) . If DOL 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. Finally, if USCIS grants a petition, a designated noncitizen 
may 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 . 
DOL, however, has already determined that the United States lacks sufficient professional nurses and 
that employment of noncitizens in these "Schedule A" positions will not harm the wages or working 
conditions of U.S. workers in similar positions. 20 C.F .R. § 656.5, (a)(2). Thus, DOL authorizes 
USCIS to adjudicate Schedule A labor certification applications for nurses in immigrant visa petition 
proceedings. 20 C.F.R . § 656.l 5(a). Therefore, in this matter, USCIS rules not only on the immigrant 
visa petition, but also on its accompanying labor certification application. See 20 C.F.R . § 656 .15(e) 
( describing the labor certification detenninations ofUSCIS in Schedule A proceedings as "conclusive 
and final"). 
II. THE DECISION 
An administrative agency must state denial grounds "with such clarity as to be understandable." SEC 
v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947). Also, USCIS officers must explain in writing "the 
specific reasons for denial." 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3(a)(l )(i). 
We cannot understand the specific basis of this petition's denial. The decision states: "The filing of 
a registered nurse underSection203(b )(3)(iii) [of theActforan] other worker is not appropriate. This 
classification does not support the requirements of a preference category for a Schedule A [filing]." 
Near the decision's end, however, it states that "[t]he minimum job requirements do not meet the 
qualifications required of a [Schedule A] filing." The decision concludes: 
The petition filed under Section 203(b )(3)(iii) [ of the Act for an] other worker does not 
me[ e ]t the requirements of [the Schedule A regulations]. As such the filing under 
Section 203(b )(3 )(iii) [ for an] other worker is not appropriate and does not meet the 
requirements of a Schedule A designation and is denied. 
We cannot determine whether the Director found the petition insufficient to meet requirements of the 
requested immigrant visa category, the requested Schedule A designation, or both. Moreover, the 
decision does not explain the specific other worker/Schedule A requirements that are purportedly 
lacking. 
For the foregoing reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter. If the 
Director believes the petition lacks a legal basis for approval, he should issue a new decision 
explaining the specific reasons for the purported ineligibility. See 1 USCIS Policy Manual E.(6)(F). 
In contrast, if the Director believes the petition lacks initial evidence or requires additional evidence, 
the Director should issue an RFE or NOID. Id. In that event, upon timely receipt of a response, the 
Director should review the entire record and enter a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2