remanded EB-3

remanded EB-3 Case: Physical Therapy

πŸ“… Date unknown πŸ‘€ Company πŸ“‚ Physical Therapy

Decision Summary

The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner was subject to a one-year mandatory debarment by the Department of Labor. The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the petition had been pending for several years and was adjudicated significantly outside of normal USCIS processing times, instructing the Director to re-evaluate the petition on its merits.

Criteria Discussed

Petitioner Debarment Schedule A Occupation Processing Delays

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
MATTER OF A-T-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 8, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I -140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a staffing business, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a physical therapist 
under the immigrant classification of professional. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. Β§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based immigrant 
classification allows U.S. employers to sponsor qualified immigrants who hold baccalaureate 
degrees and who are members of the professions. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition based on a finding by the Department of 
Labor (DOL) that the Petitioner had engaged in certain actions rendering it subject to mandatory 
debarment under sections 212(n)(2)(C) and/or (E) of the Act. The Director determined that none of 
the Petitioner's immigrant visa petitions would be approved for a period of 1 year, and denied the 
instant petition during the 1-year debarment period. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the case to the Director for further proceedings and the issuance of a new 
decision. 
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The instant petition, filed on July 27, 2007, is for a Schedule A, Group I, occupation. A Schedule A 
occupation is one codified at 20 C.F.R. Β§ 656.5(a) for which DOL has determined that there are not 
sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available, and that the wages and 
working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers will not be adversely affected by the 
employment of foreign nationals in such occupations. The current list of Schedule A occupations 
includes professional physical therapists. !d. 
Petitions for Schedule A occupations do not require a petitioner to test the labor market and obtain a 
certified ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, from DOL prior to 
filing the petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Instead, the petition is 
filed directly with USCIS with an uncertified ETA Form 9089, in duplicate. See 8 C.F.R. Β§Β§ 
204.5(a)(2) and (1)(3)(i); see also 20 C.F.R. Β§ 656.15. In accord with these provisions, the instant 
petition was filed with duplicate uncertified ETA Forms 9089. The priority date of the petition is 
Matter of A-T-, Inc. 
"the date the completed, signed petition (including all initial evidence and the correct fee) is properly 
filed with [USCIS]." 8 C.F.R. Β§ 204.5(d). 
The Director denied the petition on May 6, 2015, indicating that its decision was based on a finding 
by DOL that the Petitioner had engaged in certain actions rendering it subject to mandatory 
debarment under sections 212(n)(2)(C) and/or (E) of the Act. The denial decision was issued during 
the 1-year debarment period that ran from August 1, 2014, to July 31,2015. 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider on June 8, 2015. In a decision issued on October 7, 2015, 
the Director found that the grounds for denial had not been overcome and affirmed his original 
denial of the petition. The Petitioner then filed a motion to reopen on October 29, 2015, which the 
Director dismissed on January 12, 2016. The Petitioner filed the instant appeal on February 8, 2016. 
II. CONCLUSION 
Because the Director's decision dated May 6, 2015, appears to have been adjudicated after several years 
pending and significantly outside of normal US CIS processing times, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter to the Director for consideration of the petition on the merits and the 
issuance of a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director, Nebraska Service Center, dated May 6, 2015, is 
withdrawn. The matter is remanded to the Director, Nebraska Service Cent€r, for 
further proceedings consistent with the foregoing decision and for the entry of a new 
decision. 
Cite as Matter of A-T-, Inc., ID# 17999 (AAO Sept. 8, 2016) 
2 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Draft your EB-3 petition with AAO precedents

MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.

Sign Up Free →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.