remanded EB-3 Case: Online Gaming

MATTER OF R-D-G-, LLC . 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 30, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
T~e Petitioner, an online gaming bu~iness, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a general and 
operations manager/chief executive officer. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled 
worker under the third preference immigrant category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(B)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based "EB-3" immigrant 
classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident 
status to work in a position that requires at least two years of training or experience. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition on the ground that the Petitioner did not 
establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward. On appeal 
the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence and asserts that the evidence of record 
establishes its ability to pay the proffered wage. Upon de nova review, we find the Petitioner has 
demonstrated its ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward; however, for the 
reasons discussed herein, the petition is not approvable. As such, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the case for further consideration and the issuance of a new decision. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer obtains an 
approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(a)(5)(A)(i). By approving the labor certification, DOL certifies that there 
are insufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available for the offered position 
and that employing a foreign national in the position will not adversely affect the wages and working 
conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. Second, the employer files an immigrant visa 
petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, if USCIS approves the petition, the foreign national 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. · 
II. ANALYSIS 
· To be eligible for skilled worker classification, a beneficiary must possess at least two years of 
training or experience and meet the "educational, training or experience, and any other requirements 
.
Matter of R-D-G-, LLC 
of the individual labor certification ." 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B). The labor certification 
requirements must be met by the priority date of the petition , 1 which in this case is August 3, 2016. 
See Matter of Wing·s Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'! Comm 'r 1977). Section Hof 
the labor certification sets forth the minimum education , training, experience, and other requirements 
a beneficiary must meet to qualify for the proffered position. In this case, the labor certification 
requires at least five years of experience in the job offered or as a managing director, development 
director, or a related job to qualify for the proffered position. 
In section K of the labor certification ("Alien Work Experience") six prior jobs were listed for the 
Beneficiary between 2000 and 2016. Four employment verification letters were submitted , detailing 
the following employment experience: 
• (now known as _____ ) in as a 
·. managing director from June 2004 to December 2005; 
• as development director from January 2006 to May 2008. 
• m United Kingdom, as a 
managing director from June 2008 to May 2011; and 
• m United Kingdom, as chief executive officer from 
December 2011 to November 2014.2 
According to USCIS records, however, the Beneficiary reported different employment dates with 
and in his application for a nonimmigrant visa (NIV) filed with 
the U.S. Department of State in October 2015. On that application, the Beneficiary stated that his 
employment with commenced in November 2007, rather than June 2008 as alleged 
on the labor certification and in the employment verification letter. The alleged commencement date 
of November 2007 also conflicts with the information provided in the labor certification and 
verification letter from which both·claim that the Beneficiary began working for 
in January 2006. On the NIV application, the Beneficiary also stated that his employment dates 
with were from November 2012 until September 2014. These dates conflict 
with the information provided in the labor certification and the letter from both 
of which allege that the Beneficiary 's employment with ______ ran from December 
2011 to November 2014. 
The discrepancies described above raise doubt about the veracity of the Beneficiary's claimed 
experience. It is incumbent upon a petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not 
suffice without competent evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter of Ho, l 9 l&N Dec. 
582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's evidence also reflects on the 
reliability of the petitioner's remaining evidence. See id. 
1 The priority date of a petition is the date the underlying labor certification was filed with the DOL. 
2 This experience letter does not meet the requirements of 8 C .F.R. § 204.S(g)(I) because it does not include the 
signatory 's address . The Petitioner must.resolve this issue in any future filing in this matter. 
2 
Matter of R-D-G-. LLC 
Given the present inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's claimed experience, we cannot find 
that the Beneficiary has the required experience. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We will remand this matter to the Director to further analyze the Beneficiary's claimed experience 
and any other issue the Director· may deem relevant. On remand, the Director should provide the 
Petitioner with an opportunity to respond to the derogatory information noted above. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis and conclusion. 
Cite as Mauer of R-D-G-, LLC., ID# 1654636 (AAO Aug. 30, 2018) 
3