餐厅主厨 · EB-3 职业移民：上诉驳回（2023年2月13日）

案件背景

申请人是一家餐厅，希望以第三优先职业移民类别为受益人（一名厨师）提交I-140申请，将其归类为需要至少两年培训或经验的熟练工人，职位为“head cook”（主厨）。德州服务中心主任撤销了此前批准的申请，认为记录未证明受益人满足劳工证上写明的最低工作经验要求，并认定申请人和受益人就受益人的工作经验故意虚假陈述重大事实。申请人随后提交合并的重开动议与复议动议，主任以不符合适用法规要求为由驳回。本次上诉针对该驳回动议的决定。

审理经过

1. 初次决定

   德州服务中心主任撤销此前批准的I-140申请，认定记录未证明受益人满足劳工证写明的最低工作经验要求，并认定申请人和受益人就受益人的工作经验故意虚假陈述重大事实。

   核对原文依据

   The Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary met the minimum work experience requirement stated on the labor certification.

   查看英文原件 · 第 1 页
2. 动议

   申请人提交合并的重开动议与复议动议。记录显示该动议材料包括I-290B表格、一封与本次上诉支持信几乎相同的说明信、主任撤销决定的副本、两封此前回应撤销意向通知时已提交并已被主任考虑过的受益人前同事信件副本，以及受益人2020年6月25日的陈述。

   核对原文依据

   the motion filing consisted of a Form I-290B; a cover letter that was nearly identical to the letter submitted in support of this appeal; a copy of the Director's revocation decision; copies of two letters from the Beneficiary's claimed former co-workers that were previously submitted in response to the NOIR and already considered by the Director; and a statement from the Beneficiary dated June 25, 2020.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
3. 动议驳回

   主任驳回合并动议，认定申请人的提交不符合8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2)或(3)的适用法规要求：未陈述足以重开的新事实、未陈述复议理由、未证明撤销决定基于错误的法律或USCIS政策适用。

   核对原文依据

   the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not state new facts to warrant reopening, did not state the reasons for reconsideration, and did not establish that the revocation decision was based on an incorrect application of law or users policy.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
4. 上诉

   申请人就主任驳回合并动议的决定提出上诉，提交说明信，笼统质疑撤销决定，称此前提交的受益人同事信件足以证明受益人在韩国某餐厅担任厨师约四年，与劳工证所述一致；该信仅顺带提及主任驳回动议，未针对驳回理由作出回应或质疑。

   核对原文依据

   the Petitioner states that it is enclosing copies of previously submitted letters from the Beneficiary's co-workers which "confirm the beneficiary ... was working as a chef for about 4 years at I Irestaurant in Korea," as stated on the labor certification.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

   It does not address or contest the stated reasons for dismissal of the motions.

   查看英文原件 · 第 2 页

逐项证据分析

按争议点查看申请主张、原审意见、具体证据与 AAO 理由。点击每项标题可展开或收起。

阅读提示与适用边界

以下为基于本案的材料核对提示，不是 AAO 对其他案件的裁定。

• 阅读提示：核对动议提交材料清单时，应区分哪些文件是此前回应撤销意向通知时已提交并已被主任考虑过的材料，哪些是动议时新提交的材料；本案中两封同事信件属于前者。
  核对原文依据

  copies of two letters from the Beneficiary's claimed former co-workers that were previously submitted in response to the NOIR and already considered by the Director

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：核对受益人2020年6月25日陈述与2018年回应撤销意向通知时陈述的内容相似性，这是AAO认定其不构成新事实的依据；本判决未评价该陈述本身的真实性。
  核对原文依据

  it was very similar in content to a statement she provided in response to the NOrR in 2018, which was already considered by the Director

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页
• 阅读提示：本案上诉审查范围限于动议驳回决定，撤销决定中关于工作经验不足和虚假陈述的认定未在本次程序中重新审查，不能将本次驳回上诉理解为对撤销决定实体内容的再次确认或对原申请资格的全面审理。
  核对原文依据

  The merits of the revocation decision, and of the underlying petition, are not before us.

  查看英文原件 · 第 2 页