All Cases

The Director's decision was withdrawn because it lacked a sufficient discussion of the evidence and relied on templated language from the RFE. The matter was remanded to allow for a proper evaluation of whether the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria and, if so, a final merits determination.

The AAO withdrew the Director's findings of willful misrepresentation and lack of a bona fide job opportunity because the Petitioner conducted required recruitment with no U.S. applicants. However, the case was remanded because the Petitioner's statements indicated the job might be temporary, and the Beneficiary's experience letter was signed by a relative, requiring further verification. Additionally, the Petitioner must corroborate the signature on the appeal form which appeared inconsistent with previous records.

The Director's decision was withdrawn and the matter remanded because USCIS failed to issue an RFE or NOID, denying the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence.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 Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found insufficient evidence to support the Director's finding of willful misrepresentation regarding payment for the labor certification. Additionally, the Director failed to provide specific reasons for concluding that the company lacked the required intent to employ the Beneficiary in the offered job on a permanent basis, violating 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c).

The AAO withdrew the Director's decision because the Director incorrectly concluded that the Petitioner's motions were sent to the wrong USCIS address. Evidence, including the USCIS website's filing location, delivery tracking, and USCIS receipt records, demonstrated that the motions were filed at the correct designated location, thus warranting a remand for a decision on the merits.

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 decision was remanded because the beneficiary's employment history, as presented in the ETA 9089 and experience letter, was inconsistent with prior nonimmigrant visa applications, casting doubt on the required experience. Additionally, the petitioner failed to provide regulatory-required evidence of its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date, especially considering multiple I-140 petitions for other beneficiaries.

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.

The Director's decision to revoke was withdrawn due to deficiencies in explaining the specific reasons for revocation and failing to analyze evidence provided by the Petitioner. The matter is remanded for further consideration because additional adverse information casts doubt on the Beneficiary's claimed education and employment experience, and the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage needs to be established.

The Director's decision was based on the Petitioner's perceived inability to pay the proffered wage. The AAO withdrew this decision, finding the Petitioner did demonstrate ability to pay for 2022. However, the case was remanded because the record lacked evidence of ability to pay for 2023 and 2024, which is required for continuing eligibility.