sustained EB-3 Case: Poultry Processing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 04678977 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for an Alien Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 26, 2022 
The Petitioner, a poultry processing business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a poultry trimmer. 
It requests classification of the Beneficiary as an "other worker" under the third preference immigrant 
category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(3)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(B)(3)(A)(iii). This employment-based "EB-3" immigrant classification allows a U.S. 
employer to sponsor for lawful permanent residence a foreign national who is capable of performing 
unskilled labor that requires less than two years of training or experience and is not of a temporary or 
seasonal nature. 
The petition was initially approved, but the Director of the Texas Service Center subsequently revoked 
the petition's approval. 1 The Director determined that the Petitioner failed to establish that a bona 
fide job opportunity existed which was clearly open to any U.S. worker, and that U.S. workers who 
applied for the job opportunity were rejected for lawful job-related reasons. The Director also 
determined that the Petitioner failed to establish that the job requirements stated on the labor 
certification represented its actual minimum requirements. 
On appeal the Petitioner contests the Director's findings, submitting a brief and supporting 
documentation. The Petitioner requests that the approval of the petition be restored. Upon de nova 
review, we will sustain the appeal. 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de nova basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). The burden is on the petitioner in visa petition proceedings to establish eligibility for the 
benefit sought. See Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by 
a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the benefit sought. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). To establish its eligibility for the 
immigration benefit it seeks under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the Petitioner must 
1 Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 155, 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 USCIS officer who 
is 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). USCIS 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. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) and (c). 
submit sufficiently probative and credible evidence to establish that its claim is "more likely than not" 
or "probably" true. See Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
Upon de novo review, we determine that the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that the proffered position was a bona fide job opportunity open to U.S. workers. We also 
determine that the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
inconsistencies in the job requirements as stated in the labor certification and certain other documents 
not directly connected to the labor certification process are not substantial and do not support a finding 
that the job requirements stated on the labor certification misrepresented its actual minimum 
requirements. As the only two grounds for revocation have been overcome, we will withdraw the 
Director's decision and sustain the appeal. 2 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained. 
2 We recognize that that the Director raised significant if somewhat speculative concerns. While not sufficiently developed 
for purposes of this visa petition, the Director is not barred from further inquiry, investigation, or the development of 
questions for consular processing or adjustment of status proceedings. See Matter of 0, 8 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 1959) 
(stating that the immigrant visa petition is not the appropriate stage of the process for questions regarding admissibility). 
2