remanded EB-3 Case: Oil And Gas

MATTER OF A-T-A-F-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 16,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an oil and gas equipment supply company, seeks to employ the beneficiary as vice 
president of international business development. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a 
professional under the third preference immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § ll53(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based immigrant 
classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a professional with a baccalaureate degree for 
lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, initially approved the petition, but subsequently revoked the 
approval on two grounds. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that there was 
a bona fide job offer open to U.S. workers or that the Beneficiary met the educational requirement 
stated on the ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor 
certification). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence, 
claiming that a bona .fide job offer did exist, despite a prior relationship between the Petitioner and 
the Beneficiary, and that the Beneficiary had the requisite education to qualify for the job offered 
under the terms of the labor certification. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the case to the Director 
for further consideration and the issuance of a new decision. 
I. DISCUSSION 
The first issue to consider is whether the proffered position was a bona fide job opportunity. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(c) provides that "[a]ny United States employer desiring and intending 
to employ an alien may file a petition for classification of the alien under section 203(b )(1 )(B), 
203(b)(l)(C), 203(b)(2), or 203(b)(3) of the Act." Under 20 C.F.R. § 626.20(c)(8) and § 656.3, a 
petitioner must demonstrate that a valid employment relationship exists, that a bona fide job 
opportunity is available to U.S. workers. See also 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(1); Matter of Amger Corp., 
87-INA-545 (BALCA 1987). Upon review of the entire record, including all of the documentation 
submitted on appeal, we find that the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence 
Matter of A-T-A-F-. Inc. 
that the job offered, vice president of international business development, was a bona fide job 
opportunity open to U.S. workers. 
Next, we consider whether the Beneficiary has the education required for the offered job under the 
terms of the labor certification. Section 203(b )(3 )(A)(ii) of the Act provides that classification as a 
"professional" may be granted to "[ q]ualified immigrants who hold baccalaureate degrees and who 
are members of the professions." See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2). Moreover, to be eligible for the 
requested classification a beneficiary must also meet all of the requirements of the offered position 
set forth on the labor certification by the priority date of the petition. See Matter of Wing's Tea 
House, 16 I&N Dec. 158,159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Upon review of the entire record, including all of the documentation 
submitted on appeal, we find that the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Beneficiary meets the minimum educational requirement of the labor certification to qualify 
for the job offered. 
Although, the Petitioner has overcome the above stated grounds for revocation, the petition is not 
approvable. To be eligible for approval, the Petitioner must also establish its continuing ability to 
pay the proffered wage of the job offered from the priority date of the petition up to the present. See 
8 C.F .R. § 204.5(g)(2). The priority date of the petition is the date the underlying labor certification 
was accepted for processing by the Department of Labor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). The priority 
date in this case is April 14, 2010. 
During our consideration of the appeal we advised the Petitioner that it must establish its continuing 
ability to pay the proffered wage, which in this case is $99,500. We requested additional evidence 
for the years 2015 and 2016 to supplement previously submitted documentation for earlier years. 
The requested documentation was submitted by the Petitioner, but did not demonstrate its continuing 
ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date up to the present. 
II. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons noted above, we will withdraw the Director's decision to revoke the petition's 
approval. However, because the record does not establish the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay 
the proffered wage from the priority date up to the present, we will remand the case to the Director 
to consider this and any other issue(s) that may be deemed pertinent. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director, Texas Service Center, is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded to the Director, Texas Service Center, for further proceedings consistent 
with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter of A-T-A-F-, Inc., ID# 8465 (AAO Feb. 16, 2017) 
2