EB-3 Blues (or Jason from Friday the 13th coming back again)

Posted on September 20, 2024

Consular zealotry knows no bounds. That is the impression that I am getting after conducting a flurry of consultations on visa denials related to EB-3 cases. After an EB-3 immigrant visa is denied at the Embassy, the I-140 approved petition is referred back to USCIS for review, often with an accusation against the applicant about a supposed willful, material misrepresentation. Compounding the problem, sometimes the petitioner-employer in the US decides not to continue the process or the applicant changes his or her mind and decides to pursue other immigration options (e.g., if has a US citizen adult child). But like that evil jack-in-the-box or Jason in Friday the 13th, the “bad guy” — the misrepresentation allegation in the form of a Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) finding — pops up out of nowhere when you least expect it, years later when applying for a new, different visa. This then complicates the ability to defend yourself.

Let’s be clear: there has been some fraud in the EB-3 category over the years. Consuls have a tough job and are perfectly justified in returning petitions when a beneficiary substantively misrepresented relevant work experience; submitted falsified documents about required work experience; or misrepresented his pertinent educational background. Similarly, consuls have valid reasons to act when a US petitioner-employer misrepresented the bona fide nature of the job opportunity; submitted a fraudulent document reflecting its ability to pay; or misrepresented a material fact concerning the beneficiary’s qualifications. In such situations, the ETA Form 9089 and the Labor Certification may be irrevocably tainted in the eyes of the consul. There have also been shameful cases in which both the petitioner and beneficiary submitted forged documents or misrepresented important facts. This is not about those cases.

This is about those cases where a consul reflexively denies an EB-3 visa application without consideration of the law: based on prejudices, emotion, politics, or lack of training. Examples are manifold: 1. “How could there not be a US worker available for this position?” is the thinking of the consular officer, although the employer went through the required recruitment. 2. “This guy is overqualified for this poorly-compensated position; the offer cannot be real” when over-qualification is irrelevant to this position. 3. “This woman submitted a fake diploma showing that she has a bachelor’s degree in finance” when the position is unskilled and thus the diploma is immaterial to her qualification for the position. 4. “This guy is friends with one of the employees of the petitioner and he found him his job” when it is actually not pertinent how the applicant came to the attention of the employer. 5. “The US company petitioner lied about its ability to pay” and tries to make a finding of applicant misrepresentation when it was the petitioner signing the certification and submitting relevant documents, not the applicant, i.e., the applicant can only be ascribed to have made a misrepresentation if the applicant attested to a material fact, not the petitioner. The list goes on — as do the consequences: a consular accusation of a willful, material misrepresentation against the visa applicant in the EB-3 process can lead to a permanent bar from entry to the United States.

As you can see, this is another ripe area to challenge visa decisions. For EB-3 cases, the consul’s role, in actuality, is supposed to be limited: the consul is prohibited from re-adjudicating the approval. As long as the evidence submitted is consistent with the approval; there was no misrepresentation of a material fact; and the applicant meets the requirements of the employment offered, the visa must be issued. If you have been denied an EB-3 visa or if you have been refused another visa because of an EB-3 process that was deemed defective by a consul or if you think you may find yourself in this situation in the future, contact us. Nothing worse than being surprised by Jason…

Tags: 212(a)(6)(C), Consular Officers, EB-3, Misrepresentation, Petition Revocation, Visa Fraud