sustained EB-3 Case: Car Audio Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 10, 2024 In Re: 30867470 
Motions on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Skilled Worker) 
The Petitioner, a provider of car audio services, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a car 
audio installer. The company requests his classification under the employment-based, third-preference 
(EB-3) immigrant visa category as a "skilled worker." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(3)(A)(i). U.S. businesses may sponsor noncitizens in this 
subcategory to work in jobs requiring at least two years of training or experience. Id. 
The Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, 
contrary to the offered job's requirements, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
experience with designated materials. On appeal, we summarily dismissed the company's filing, 
finding that it did not allege an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The matter returns to us on the Petitioner's combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The company 
bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the 
evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will grant 
the motion to reconsider. The company has demonstrated the Beneficiary's work with the requisite 
materials. We will therefore also sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
In contrast, a motion to reconsider must demonstrate that our most recent decision misapplies law or 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy based on the record at the time of the 
decision. 8 C .F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). When adjudicating motions, we consider only our most recent 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). We may grant motions that meet these requirements and demonstrate 
eligibility for the requested benefit. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
A. The Summary Dismissal 
We must summarily dismiss an appeal that does not "identify specifically any erroneous conclusion 
oflaw or statement of fact." 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Consistent with the regulation, the Petitioner asserted erroneous statements of specific facts. We will 
therefore grant the company's motion to reconsider and review the Director's denial of the petition. 1 
B. The Beneficiary's Experience with the Required Materials 
A petitioner must demonstrate a beneficiary's possession of all U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) -
certified job requirements of an offered position by a petition's priority date. Matter of Wing's Tea 
House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). When assessing a beneficiary's 
qualifications, USCIS must examine the job-offer portion of an accompanying labor certification to 
determine the job's minimum requirements. We may neither ignore certification terms nor impose 
unstated requirements. See, e.g., Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1015 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (holding 
that "DOL bears the authority for setting the content of the labor certification") ( emphasis in original). 
This petition's priority date is December 1, 2021, the date DOL accepted the accompanying labor 
certification application for processing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d) (explaining how to determine a 
petition's priority date). 
The labor certification states that the offered job of car audio installer requires neither education nor 
training but at least three years of experience "in the job offered." The labor certification indicates 
that the Petitioner will not accept experience in an alternate occupation. Also, in response to Question 
H.14, "Specific skills or other requirements," the certification states: "Experience working with 
fiberglass, acrylic, abs, [polycarbonate], and carbon fiber." 
On the labor certification, the Beneficiary attested that, by the petition's priority date, he gained more 
than four years of full-time, qualifying experience in Colombia. He stated that a car audio business 
employed him as a car audio installer technician from June 2017 to November 2021. The Beneficiary 
did not indicate any other qualifying experience. 
Consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A), the Petitioner provided a letter from the Beneficiary's 
former employer in Colombia. The 2021 letter from the business's general manager confirms the 
Beneficiary's job title and dates of employment. The letter also lists his former job duties. 
The Director, however, issued a request for additional evidence (RFE). The RFE notes that, contrary 
to the required materials listed in response to Question H.14 of the labor certification, the former 
employer's letter did not indicate the Beneficiary's work with fiberglass, acrylic, abs, polycarbonate, 
1 As we will grant the motion to reconsider, we will dispense with adjudicating the motion to reopen and dismiss it as 
moot. See Matter of Reyes, 26 I&N Dec. 528, 528 n.3 (BIA 2015) (allowing an administrative tribunal to dismiss appeals 
and motions as moot if they lack practical significance). 
2 
and carbon fiber. The Petitioner's RFE response included a 2023 letter from the former employer. 
The more recent letter adds a sentence to the prior letter, indicating the Beneficiary's work with the 
materials listed in Question H.14. The Director denied the petition, however, stating that the 2023 
letter "will not be considered because it post-date[ s] this instant Form T-140 petition's date of filing." 
Citing Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971), the decision states that a petitioner 
must demonstrate eligibility at the time of a petition's filing and that the immigration service cannot 
approve a petition "after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts." 
The Director erred in rejecting the 2023 letter from the Beneficiary's former employer. The Director 
correctly stated that a petitioner must establish eligibility "at the time of filing the benefit request." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. But that rule bars evidence of post­
filing events. The rule does not prevent a petitioner, after a petition's filing, from submitting evidence 
of education, training, or experience gained before the petition's filing. Thus, if the 2023 letter had 
indicated the Beneficiary's work with the required materials after the petition's filing date, the Director 
would have correctly barred the evidence. But the 2023 letter indicates that the Beneficiary gained 
experience with the materials before the petition's December 1, 2021 filing date. 
The 2023 letter states that the Beneficiary "has extensive experience working with fiberglass, acrylic, 
abs, [polycarbonate], and carbon fiber, materials that are pertinent to the assembly and installation of 
the above [mentioned equipment]." Thus, the letter indicates that, while employed before the 
petition's December 1, 2021 priority date, the Beneficiary worked with the requisite materials. 
The 2023 letter complies with regulations, and the record lacks evidence casting doubt on its 
authenticity or credibility. The Petitioner therefore has demonstrated the Beneficiary's experience 
with the materials specified in Question H.14 of the labor certification. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is granted, and the appeal is sustained. 
3