PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
RemandedEB-2 · Motion to reopen

Healthcare administrator

Clinical & health · decided 2021-08-10 · TSC · AUG102021_01B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

Considering the appeals of the Beneficiary and Petitioner together, we remanded the matters to the Director. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • Considering the appeals of the Beneficiary and Petitioner together, we remanded the matters to the Director. See in text
  • We remanded the matter to him in revocation proceedings. See in text
  • ORDER: ThedecisionoftheDirectoriswithdrawn. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (3)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · In Re : 17624197 · Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: AUG. 10, 2021 · Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Advanced Degree Professional

    The Petitioner sought to employ the Beneficiary as a healthcare administrator. The business requested his classification under the second-preference, immigrant visa category for members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalents. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(bX2)(A).

    Afterthefiling'sinitialgrant, theDirectoroftheTexasServiceCenterrevokedthepetition'sapproval. The Beneficiary appealed the decision to us, while the Petitioner filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider the decision to the Director. The Director dismissed the Petitioner's motions, and the business appealed the motions decision. Considering the appeals of the Beneficiary and Petitioner together, we remanded the matters to the Director. Matter o fL-S-A-P-, P. C., ID# 81869 (AAO Feb. 2, 2018). We instructed him to determine the Beneficiary's eligibility to participate in the revocation On remand, the Director allowed the Beneficiary to participate in the proceedings and issued a new decision denying the petition. The Director concluded that the Beneficiary did not demonstrate: 1) his qualifying experience for the offered position and the requested immigrant visa category; 2) the Petitioner's required ability to pay the position's proffered wage; or 3) the bonajides of the job opportunity. The Director also found that the Petitioner and Beneficiary willfully misrepresented material facts in the petition.

    The Director, however, lacked authority to deny the previously approved petition. We remanded the matter to him in revocation proceedings. Under 8 C.F.R. § 205.2, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must either revoke a petition's approval or allow the grant to stand. See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(n) (stating that an approved, employment-based petition remains valid indefinitely unless USCIS revokes the filing' s approval). Thus, the Director erred in denying the petition. We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter again.

    V-S-G- requires USCIS to treat beneficiaries in revocation proceedings as affected parties if they properly requested to "port"tonewjobsundersection204Q)oftheAct,8U.S.C.1154G),andqualifyfor"portability." Id.,slipop.at*14. proceedingsunderMatterofV-S-G-Inc.,AdoptedDecision2017-06(AAONov. 11,2017). Id.

    On remand, the Director should issue a notice of intent to revoke the petition's approval to the Beneficiary, detailing the proposed revocation grounds and affording him a reasonable opportunity to respond. See8C.F.R.§205.2(b). Uponreceiptofatimelyresponse,theDirectorshouldreviewthe entire record and enter a new decision.

    ORDER: ThedecisionoftheDirectoriswithdrawn. Thematterisremandedforentryofanew decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.