sustained EB-3 Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-0-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 28. 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a restaurant/bakery, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as bread maker. It requests 
classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference immigrant 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(B)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based 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 petition (Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker) was initially approved. However, 
the Director of the Nebraska Service Center subsequently revoked the approval. and invalidated the 
underlying labor certification (ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment 
Certification), based on findings that fraudulent statements were made to obtain the labor 
certification and that the Beneficiary was not performing the duties of the proffered position. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that no fraud or misrepresentation occurred in the labor certification 
process and requests that the revocation decision be withdrawn and the original approval reinstated. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
An employment-based immigrant petition for skilled worker classification. like this petition. must be 
accompanied by a valid labor certification. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(i). A labor certification may 
be invalidated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) based on a finding by DHS of fraud 
or willful misrepresentation of a material fact involving the labor certification application. See 
20 C.F.R. § 656.30(d). Lack of a valid labor certification is grounds for denying. or revoking the 
previous approval of~ an employment-based immigrant petition. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security may "for 
good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition.'' By regulation this revocation 
authority is delegated to any U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer authorized 
to approve an immigrant visa petition ''when the necessity for the revocation comes to the attention 
of [USCIS]." 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a). USC IS must give the petitioner notice of its intent to revoke the 
prior approval of the petition and the opportunity to submit evidence in opposition thereto, before 
proceeding with written notice of revocation. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) and (c). 
.
Matter of M-G-. Inc. 
In this case, four years after approving the petition , the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke 
(NOIR) the approval following a site visit by USCIS. According to the Director, the site visit 
appeared to show that the specific skills listed in section H.l4 of the labor certification were not 
required to perform the job of bread maker and raised the question of whether "'fraudulent 
statements " were made to obtain the labor certification. After receiving the Petitioner's response to 
the NOIR, the Director issued a decision in which he found that ''the beneficiary does not actually 
perform the duties outlined" in the labor certification. On this ground, the Director invalidated the 
labor certification and revoked the approval of the petition. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was improper because it does not state 
how the Petitioner committed fraud or willfully misrepresented a material fact. We agree with the 
Petitioner that the Director's decision did not explain how fraud or willful misrepresentation of a 
material fact was committed by the Petitioner. In fact. after briefly referring to ·'fraudulent 
statements " allegedly made on the labor certification which led to the issuance of the NOIR, the 
Director made no specific finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact in the 
revocation decision. 
We find that the Director 's invalidation of the labor certification was improper because it was not 
based on a finding that the Petitioner committed fraud or willfully misrepresented a material fact in 
the labor certification process, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(d). Since the labor certification 
was not properly invalidated , the legal basis for the revocation decision - lack of a valid labor 
certification accompanying the petition , as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(i) - was also improper. 
We conclude, therefore, that there was no "good and sutlicient cause'' to revoke the approval of the 
petition, as required by section 205 of the Act. 
For the reasons discussed above, we will withdraw the Director"s decision. We will sustain the 
appeal, reinstate the labor certification, and reinstate the approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
FURTHER ORDER: The ETA Form 9089. case number is reinstated. 
Cite as Matter of M-G-. Inc., ID# 832333 (AAO Sept. 28, 20 17) 
2