E-Learning Coordinator

The Director's decision was withdrawn and the matter remanded because USCIS failed to issue an RFE or NOID, denying the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence. The Director also did not fully consider the totality of the circumstances regarding the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage, as required by Matter of Sonegawa. The case requires further review of the evidence and a new decision.

The motion to reconsider was granted regarding the Petitioner's intent to employ the Beneficiary permanently, as the evidence, including a letter stating 'full-time, permanent basis for the foreseeable future,' was deemed sufficient. However, the case was remanded because the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of its ability to pay the proffered wage of $93,600 annually for 2017 and 2018, as required by regulation.

The Director's decision was insufficient for review because it lacked analysis of relevant evidence submitted by the Petitioner, including newspaper advertisements, job orders, and internal applicant tracking records. The AAO determined that while there was cause for inquiry due to the former employee's fraud, the Director must explain why the specific evidence provided did not overcome the grounds for revocation. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a new decision that addresses all submitted documentation.