remanded EB-3 Case: Restaurant

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 01699565 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUL. 29, 2022 
The Petitioner operates a restaurant and seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a cook. The 
company requests her classification under the third-preference, immigrant visa category as a skilled 
worker . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C . 
§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). 
After the filing's initial grant, the Acting Director of the Nebraska Service revoked the petition's 
approval. The Acting Director invalidated the accompanying certification from the U.S. Department 
of Labor (DOL), concluding that, on the certification application, the Petitioner willfully 
misrepresented material facts. On appeal, the Petitioner denies the alleged misrepresentations. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance 
of evidence . See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec . 582, 589 (BIA 1988) ( discussing the standard of proof 
in petition revocation proceedings); see also Matter oJChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010) 
(discussing the standard of proof). Upon de nova review, we find that the Acting Director did not 
sufficiently explain the denial grounds. We will therefore withdraw the Acting 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 skilled worker generally follows a three-step process . First, a prospective employer 
must obtain DOL certification that: (1) there are insufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, and 
available for an offered position; and (2) employment of a noncitizen in the position will not harm wages 
and working conditions of U.S. workers with similar jobs. See section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1182(a)(5) . 
Second, an employer must submit an approved labor certification with an immigrant visa petition to 
U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1154. 
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). 
Finally, if USCIS 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. 
At any time before a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent resident status, USCIS may revoke a 
petition's approval for "good and sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155. If 
supported by a record, a petition's erroneous approval justifies its revocation. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 590. 
USCIS properly issues a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) a petition's approval if the unexplained 
and unrebutted record at the time of the NOIR's issuance would have warranted the petition's denial. 
Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 451 (BIA 1987). If a petitioner does not submit a NOIR response 
or the response does not overcome the stated revocation grounds, USCIS properly revokes the 
petition's approval. Id. at 452. 
II. THE DECISION 
A director who revokes a petition's approval "shall provide the petitioner ... with a written notification 
of the decision that explains the specific reasons for the revocation." 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c). 
Contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c), the Acting Director's written decision does not sufficiently explain 
the grounds for revoking the petition's approval. The decision and the NOIR appear to allege multiple 
misrepresentations on the labor certification application, including those involving: a family 
relationship between the Beneficiary and the Petitioner's president/sole shareholder; and the 
Beneficiary's purported attempt to obtain lawful permanent residence "under false pretenses." The 
decision and NOIR also allege that the Beneficiary's principal laundered money and transported a 
noncitizen who illegally entered the country. 
The decision states that the Petitioner "willfully misrepresented a material fact in [the company's] 
labor certification application by giving a false answer on the [application form]." But the decision 
does not specify the purported false answer or whether the revocation stems from other purported false 
answers on the application. Indeed, the company stated that it was "very difficult to respond to such 
allegations since the Petitioner is not sure about [to] what [the] USCIS adjudicator is referring." 
Because the Acting Director did not explain the specific reasons for the revocation, we will withdraw 
the decision and remand the matter. 
On remand, the Director should enter a new decision specifying and explaining the reasons for the 
revocation, see 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c), and certifying the decision to us for review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.4. 
If the record supports additional, potential grounds of revocation, the Director should issue a new 
NOIR informing the company of all potential revocation grounds and allowing it a reasonable 
opportunity to respond. See 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b). Upon timely receipt of a response, the Director 
should then review the entire record, enter a new decision, and, if adverse to the Petitioner, certify it 
to us for review. 
2 
ORDER: The decision of the Director 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