All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Beneficiary failed to demonstrate the Petitioner's intent and ability to employ him in the offered job at the time of the petition's approval. The company's corporate suspension, permit revocation, and the owner's severe health issues and subsequent death indicated it could not conduct business or employ the Beneficiary. The Director's findings regarding ability to pay and alleged misrepresentations were withdrawn due to insufficient prior notice.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient independent, objective evidence to resolve inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's qualifying experience. Specifically, the record did not overcome the derogatory information found in the Beneficiary's prior visa application and the ambiguous business registration certificate.

The Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's qualifying experience of four years in consumer marketing and sales in the fashion jewelry industry by the priority date of March 24, 2016. Business registration documents provided did not corroborate job duties or specific employment dates, and inconsistencies in the Beneficiary's work history remained unresolved.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a bona fide intent to employ the Beneficiary in the offered position. The record did not establish that the Beneficiary met the minimum requirement of two years of experience in the job offered by the priority date. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not sufficiently prove its ability to pay the proffered wage due to unresolved discrepancies in financial and payroll documentation.

The motion to reopen failed to establish a valid successor-in-interest relationship due to inconsistent and unreliable documentation regarding the transfer of assets. Additionally, the Beneficiary did not demonstrate that his three-year foreign degree was equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree as required by the EB-3 professional category.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary possessed the required two years of skilled labor experience by the priority date. The evidence provided was deemed not credible due to material inconsistencies between the labor certification and the Beneficiary's prior statements to the Department of State. Additionally, the familial relationship between the Beneficiary and the former employer undermined the independence and reliability of the supporting documentation.