How common are remanded EB-3 petitions?

EB-3 petition outcomes vary based on the strength of evidence, the specific criteria addressed, and the adjudicating officer. Each case is evaluated individually based on its own merits and documentation.

How does the staffing for senior care industry affect EB-3 petition outcomes?

The staffing for senior care sector has unique considerations for EB-3 petitions. USCIS evaluates whether the petitioner's qualifications and contributions align with the specific requirements of the visa category. Industry context matters for demonstrating the significance and impact of the petitioner's work.

remanded EB-3 RFE Issued

Personal Care Aide

Staffing For Senior Care · 2024-09-13

Decision Date

2024-09-13

Location

Virginia

This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.

Framework Evaluation

0 of 2 criteria met

Employer's Ability to Pay Proffered Wage (Partially Met)

The Petitioner submitted regulatory required evidence (owner's Schedule C) for 2021 and 2022, but questions remain regarding access to CD funds and the combined wage requirements for multiple petitions.

Petitioner's Intent to Employ Beneficiary (Not Met)

The company's 'pending inactive' business status in its home state casts doubt on its intent to employ the Beneficiary.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The AAO withdrew the Director's decision because the Petitioner's owner's Schedule C effectively served as the company's federal income tax return, fulfilling the regulatory evidence requirement for ability to pay. However, the case was remanded because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate continuous access to CD funds, did not provide details for combined wage requirements for multiple I-140 petitions, and its 'pending inactive' business status raised doubts about its intent to employ the beneficiary.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Successfully Addressed

The RFE requested additional evidence of the company's ability to pay the proffered wage. The petitioner responded by submitting the owner's 2021 federal income tax return (including Schedule C), additional bank statements, and a letter from the owner. The AAO found the Schedule C to be valid evidence, but further questions regarding ability to pay and intent to employ led to a remand.

RFE Targets

Employer's Ability to Pay Proffered Wage

Similar Cases

Customer Service Representative

Hospitality

USCIS EB-3 rfe dismissed

2025-01-06

The appeal is dismissed because the Petitioner failed to provide the initial evidence required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) to demonstrate its ability to pay the proffered wage. Current USCIS policy mandates annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements, even if the beneficiary has been paid the proffered wage, and the Petitioner did not provide these documents or explain their unavailability.

Sales Representative

Retail

USCIS EB-3 remanded

2025-03-06

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.

Web Developer

Information Technology

USCIS EB-3 rfe remanded

2024-11-07

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.

Others

Healthcare · Lebanon

USCIS EB-3 rfe dismissed

2024-10-01

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary possessed at least 36 months of full-time experience as a personal care attendant (PCA) by the priority date. The provided time sheets showed that the Beneficiary worked full-time for only 21 out of 36 months between July 2014 and June 2017, and no time sheets were provided for the period after June 2017 to prove the requisite hours. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence of the Beneficiary's high school diploma or its foreign equivalent, a stated requirement on the labor certification.

Frequently Asked Questions

A remanded EB-3 petition means the case was sent back to the field office for further review. This happens when procedural errors are found or additional evidence should be considered. It is neither an approval nor a denial.

Browse More Cases

More remanded cases More Healthcare cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-09-13.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded

RFE Issued

Criteria Met 0 / 2

EB-3 Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 108

Success Rate 9.3%

Sustained 10

Dismissed 63

EB-3 Overview All EB-3 Cases EB-3 Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist