remanded EB-3 Case: Software Consulting

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
f)l 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Acting Director (director), 
Nebraska Service Center. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
case will be remanded to the director for further investigation and entry of a new decision. 
The petitioner is a software-consulting firm. It sought to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States 
as a senior consultant. As required by statute, the petition was accompanied by an individual labor certification 
approved by the Department of Labor (DOL). The director determined that the petitioner had failed to establish 
that the beneficiary's educational credentials met the requirements of the approved labor certification. 
The record indicates that the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (1-140) is the third application filed by the 
petitioner on behalf of the beneficiary. The first petition (LIN 00 037 52357) was filed for a third preference visa 
classification. It was approved and then automatically revoked on April 20,2001, based on the petitioner's notice 
of withdrawal. This petition had been supported by an approved labor certification with a priority date of 
November 5, 1997. 
The petitioner then filed a second 1-140 (LIN 03 009 51423) on behalf of the beneficiary, this time seelung a 
second preference visa classification using a different labor certification with a priority date of February 15,2002. 
This petition was denied and the subsequent appeal was dismissed on December 23,2003. 
The petitioner filed the instant petition (LIN 04 032 50278) seelung a third preference visa classification. The 
director denied the petition on December 28, 2004, finding that the beneficiary's educational credentials failed to 
meet the requirements of the labor certification with the February 15, 2002, priority date. This appeal was 
brought in response to the director's decision. 
On appeal, counsel indicates that the 1-140 (LIN 04 032 50278) filed on November 14,2003, was intended to be 
adjudicated using the earlier labor certification that had supported the original 1-140 filed and subsequently 
revoked. She asserts that the director analyzed the petition as though it was filed on behalf of a beneficiary 
seeking second preference classification as an alien holding an advanced degree based on the 02/15/02 labor 
certification. Although the file has little or no correspondence accompanying the filing of this 1-140, which could 
have clearly explained which labor certification was intended to be used, it is noted that LIN 00 037 52357 was 
mentioned in an addendum attached to the 1-140. 
In this case, we agree with counsel. The labor certification underlying LIN 00 037 52357 that was originally 
submitted for a third preference visa classification should be transferred to this application for a third preference 
classification and reviewed accordingly. 
In view of the foregoing, the previous decision of the director will be withdrawn. The petition is remanded to 
the director to conduct further investigation relevant to the job offer described in the labor certification 
underlying the 1-140 previously filed under LIN 00 037 52357. Similarly, the petitioner may provide 
additional evidence within a reasonable period of time to be determined by the director. Upon receipt of all 
the evidence, the director will review the entire record and enter a new decision. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision is withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director for further 
action consistent with the foregoing and entry of a new decision, which, if adverse to the 
petitioner, is to be certified to the AAO for review.