Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 49 of 117
.... - .. . .., .
Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 50 of 117
A88 Z94435
DISCUSSION: The Director, Californ...
Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 51 of 117
"' •' 'o I '..••• "
ASS ~94 435
indicate that ...
Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 52 of 117
~-i:::'!- ,,; • .,; - ·· •'- '· • .;
Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 53 of 117
.~. :·.;. •: , " ' ' • .:;:••,. •· I · ·: o
A88294 43...
Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 54 of 117
To: 212~432698 ~ 1/
Tl1e: d~, jn tl!e uQtlcc, empb~ized ...
Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 55 of 117
,l·,;.~ . • ". , , . ::.~,.~.~... •.. • . ... .... . I ~...
Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 56 of 117
' .
A8& 294435
1033 (BIA 1997); MatrerojMa~...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

AAO I-360 Dismissal United Methodist Church of the Good Shepard Jan. 25, 2011


Published on

AAO I-360 Dismissal United Methodist Church of the Good Shepard Jan. 25, 2011. Will it withstand APA review?

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

AAO I-360 Dismissal United Methodist Church of the Good Shepard Jan. 25, 2011

  1. 1. Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 49 of 117 .... - .. . .., . u"NITEP ~THOD!ST CmJRCH OF GOOD SHEPHERD 10901 CAU.RARD. PHILADELPHIA. PA 191:54 ,. .. ·-·· .. u.s. ~IIParm>cm llfJlmll~t.l!KI s~llril1 tJ.S. Cldut•.bipilnd lmmf~iQ~ ~o:s Admi'Blm~tw: i!.p_p~ls Ofllc:.e {MO) 20 M;u;Sicltustl!ll Avf., N.W.• MS 20;10 W<~~llbtslllllo OC 10$a9-200il . US. Citizenship and Im.m1gration Serv1~s A&3 294435 Office: CALll!QRNIA SERVICE CENTER WAC 01 Z23 5343S IN'RE: Petitioner. UNITED METHODIST CHURCH O'P GOOD SHEPHERD .Benflficiary: Ql .BI SHE PE'TTI'ION: lCilmigrant ~ition fur Special hnmigr~nt ReligjoM W{lrker'P11nma.m ~o Section203(b)(4) cf the rmmigratiou and NatioMI,ity Acf. (tht Ac[), li U.S.C. § llS:3(b)(4). as descn'bOO a£ Seet:on J01(a){2?)(C) oft.lle Ad.. 8 U.S.C. § ~ 101(a)(27)(C) ON BEfiALFOF FETITIONER.: JAN H. BROWN l I:50 AVENOE Of.THE AMERICAS, STE. 100 i"b"W YO!P(, NY 10036 XN'STRU'CTIONS: Enclosed pletlse find Che decixiiJll of !he Adminislr.ltive Appeal$ Office n yout ca~. .All of Ue <l~11ts related tn til[S matter haYe been rerurned ro tht: office tlll!.t ariginaUy decided your case. Pleme be advired mat any fur!her int}ull)l llt<1t you migll.{.bav~ ~oneemillg your case must br.: m11de to tbat office. If you believe U1c !;m.- was inappropria~t;ly ;~ppJied by .us wreaclting our decision. M you additional infonnatlon Ula.t you wi:~'b to bave copstdtred, you UlaY !He3 motion to -reconsider ora motion ~ Ie(lpt!n, The· specific requ)¢me~Jts fcr filing ~uch a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. ~ l(llS. A.U motion.~ must be ::ubro!lted to the offie<: that originally decidetl yo-ur~ by filing a For:m l-290B, NQt.i(e of Ap~l or Mctio?., with a fee "of $6J(J_ Pk:ue be aware that 8 § l03.S{aXl)(i) require,, that allY· mOli.ou m~t be fi!~d within SD day~ of lbe decis.iclu that the motion seeks to reconsid-'..r or reopen. Thank you, ' . ' ·: Jan252011_02C1101.pdf The below link is to the AAO NP Decision posted online.
  2. 2. Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 50 of 117 ,. A88 Z94435 Page2 . DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Canter, <lenied the employme111~besed iinmigtMI visa vetitioiL The petitioner appealed the decision to the Adnuristrative Appeals Office (AAO). The AA.o..subsequently remanded lbe petition to the di~~r for a new decision based on revised regulati.ous. Th<:; director again denied me petitiM. and the petitioner agam appealed the decisionto the AAO. The AAO wil1 dismiss the appeal. 1'11~ petitiooc.r .is a chmcb l1elonging to the ~tern .Pennsylvania Cmh"'erence (Fl>C) of the Uni~ Melh.odist Church (UMC). It seeks 1.G classify the beneficiary as a. special immigrant reUgiou$ worker pur.5u<Jttt 1:0 section 203(b)(4) of the hcinigrarlon and Nationality Act (the Acl), 3 U.S.C.. § !153(b)(4}, to perfoJm services as a ••Otinese Co:mmun.ity Liaison -pastor to the Cbioose Community."' The director detcnninerl tbnt lhe petitio..'let had not established that the benefitisry·had the required two ye.m:s of qualifytng, Iaiul work experience immediately~ing the filing date offu.e petition. On .i!ppcal. the pe.titioom· submits a brief from c~el and eXhibits iu support of the .argurnen~ that an "internal ~strative error'' by the UM.C led to the denial of th~ petition; that fire UMC had l'emedied the error: .and that, tlte ~cuer h2ld overoom~ the grounds for dental, Sedi011 W3(b)(4) of ili~ M:t provides classification to qualified spc.cim irnm.igrnnt l'cligious workers as described in sealor1 10!(a.)(27)(C) of 'lh<: Act1 8 U:S.C. § Il01{a){27){C), which. perte:ins !D an immi.grannvh.o: (j) for at least 2 yelll8 immediately preceding the time of ap~:ltcatton- fot admission, hal; hem a membe.r of a rcligious der.OOl.in11ticm having a bona fide n<mp1.ufit. religi.Oui Ot'glmizati(}n in. the United States~ (ii} secl-..8 to enltt the United Stater {I) solely for the purpose of cmying on the vocr~tion of a mirtisr:cr of that religious dooontination ..• ; and · {ill) has been carrying on such vocation, professional work, cr other work continuously for at leEist ihe 2~year perkld described in clause (i). The petitioner filed the Form 1·360 petition on July 201 2007. At milt Lime, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USClS) regulation at 8 C.f'.R. § 204.5(m)(3)(ii)(A) required U1e employer to altest ~t:. immedi~ly prior to the filing of the petition., lhe alien had. the tcqulred nw ye.ars of cipe,rience in qualifying religiou& work. · ln a letter dated. June 28, 2001, Rev. SUsan C. CZ<IIll.ecld cf the per:itio.nb:lg chUl'ch .'ltmed. thallhe beneficiary. ••comes to us well suited for the job from me Tiau Fu Oniied !Y1ethodist Chlll:.h (Drook11'n. NY) where she was the pastor from Septembe:r l. 2004 to Apri130.. 2IX'fl."' Rev. C:z:art:lec!ci added that- . the beneficiary •'is an integl'al pan of our mini~try at [the petitioning church).'" These statement.
  3. 3. Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 51 of 117 "' •' 'o I '..••• " ASS ~94 435 Pagc3 ... indicate that the benefici.,.ry had already begun working at th~ pctilioning cburcb before !he filing ofthe irnrnigrant petition.. Previously, the New York An..nual Confesenre {NYAC) of ~ UMC had filed a Form 1·129 oon1mmigraot petltioJt on or about.Novernl3er S, 2004. USCIS appro100 that petition. the bcn~ficiary towoik: for tftc;. NYAC a.".an Rrl nonimroigrm t religious worker until Novembc;; 10•.2007. The 10 authorit.atioo to wo.IX for any other l:lrganizational unit of the UMC. , PK:ior to November26, 2008, the USCIS regulationat &C.F.R. § 214-.2{r)(6) read: Cltengc: of en-.plQye-rs. A dffretent or additional orgamzatiotml unit of the ttlil,"ious· , denomlnation l!eelting to empJoy or engage !he st.!Vices of u tel.igioos wod<:tr admitted undtl! this section $hall file Fonn 1"129 with the appropriate fee. The petition sh.a!l be filed with the Savic¢·Cenrer having juris~lion over the place of employment. The: pct.ition must be accompanied by evidenre establishing that the alien will continue to qualify as a religious worker under this scai.on. Any unauthol'i.7..ed chang~ to a ne:w religiou.~ ~ional unit will constirele a. fai.luro to maiutain sfatos within the meaningofsectiou24l{aX1XC)(i) of the Act. The above regulation was in effocl '!"hen tl1e ~AC filed its nonimmigrant peti.tiorl in 2004, ~ wfu:u the present pelitioner filed this inunigrsr...t petition iu '2JXY7. More geD..e.rally. onder 8 C.F.R. § 214J(e) 11 nonimmigmnt may engage only in such employment as has been amhorized Any una.uthoriud· employment by a nonimmigrant constiWtes afailure to maintain status. Tbe new rcgu].a.tion at 8 C.F.R. ~ 2l4.2(r){l3) (;:ontains provisiom comparable fQUJler regulation al8 C.P.R. ~ 2i4.2(r){6), d1at an R~1 r.cmimmigrnnt m.ay oot reccive oorupens~tion for wor~ for any rel.igious orgarrlzarion olher than tile R-1petitio.qerQr thealie.n will be om of&~us. Qo September l.7. 'lttl7, the director ittstructed the peJjtioner to submit c-'idence of the bcnefJcinr;'s employment hlsi.Ocy duriog tb~ tYo-year period. 1n response, £be petitioner submitted a sU~temeut ~»n the beneficiary, Yhkl reads, in part {My spouse and l} were employed by the New Y£Irk Annunl Conference clfhc United 'Melliodist;b'(NYAC) ~d dlt General Board CJfG!obal 1vfinisuy (GBGM) ofthe Unite-d Methodist Cf,Jurcb (UMC) to sUrt ~'O Fu?)Jou language minil!tries.. . . GBGM . g.·we us salaries throl)gh ..N"fAC. . .. · .Frnm July 20, 2005 to April30, 2007, [IJ W()rked as a pastel' for the Ti1m Fu United Metbodist Church. J3roo.ldyn. New York. . .. · :Beginrung on May 1. 1007 lo present, Jbave o~n work:ing a-> fu~ Ow~ese Community I.,iaison and pastc.ll: fur the Chines~ commu.oity in Plliladdpbia.. Lower .Bucks C(Jun~; ao.:J EaStern Mcmtgomea-y counties t>fPennsylvania. I am empfoycd by the [petitioner]. 1'l:lt: Rev. Sl.YSan C . Ctanle<:ki., the semor-pastor, Is my immediate !ill{>"..lVlSOr.
  4. 4. Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 52 of 117 ~-i:::'!- ,,; • .,; - ·· •'- '· • .; .AS829-H35 Pag.c4 -rue petl~ nl:$Q :ruhmitwd a thl'e6-png.e ··s~ uf the ..Cb~e ML~· lnidative I May 1 - September 30J 2{)07/1 dated Octoher 2, 'JJYJ7 and signed by Rev. Czameclcl. In that document, Rev. Cz.mlecld ~: '':Aftc.: SQ1Jlb inm;J dlffia1lty !n gcttmg the CMih f"Jlcw rsi~) ~ighte!>!d .o~t with tho Confc.rence oro~. we Il.Q~i ~'Ill ach~on (ll' nbOLl.t the: Mtof the month!OJ:"$4,338.84 to ~ver ithe :b~wi<1ty'~] salary P)I.Cltag(). Vhi!e that was be~ wor.ked out {the petitioner} covered payro11 expt:1:18!::i from our e~>crowkecouJt rumtllen reonid ourselves lhe lii!I.Ountw~ hal.spent to cover payro.!J."l • ! Pho!ocop~ pay rteeipts~l.OW pn~enllS w the btli!ldi.Q]:~ from the NYAC bt.:tWW1 May 2.000 and March 2007. Copies af p y ~ipts from !ater in 2001 do .nm identify the cmplcyt.t". hu~ tb.c:t re:.:1~ wit.hholding of Pe:tmS'y~y .ia state income taX, O'!LS!swlt wilh c.:mplcrpneat with the' in ~~~n~ .. We note that £he pctitianer 6!00. a:farm l·12S uonitnmigrant ~:on·on the bcnefrcinry's hehnlf (wiih roccipt nuttilicr WAC OS Q21 !i0266) o.n Oct~br..r 2.9, 2007. )?.m 2, line 2 of LIJ.e Fotm 1-129 offeced tM foUowl.Ilg choices: a. 0 New employment (iocllld.ins uew ernp.!oyeJ.'filing H-1B exten~ion). b. Ll ContinuatiOn of p~-iously a.pprow~d cmplt~}-ment withom change with the ~.e employer. c, 0 Chlll.lgein po'C.'Iious1y approvedemployment. d. 0 New COOcl!rJ:e(lt cmploymcm. c. D Change of~mploye.. f. D A!'D.endea petition. The ,l>etitiolter ooookt:d ''e," ~'Cbauge of employer.'' lhUi Bdmowledilng that thl; b~neficl.acy bcld her tben·cU11ent R-l np~t status due to m-.. ewtier petition fi1.c.:l by & cllfferant employ~ (the NY'AC). The clirecror de..icd the ptiition Oil Decer~:~bet 3, 2007, sumng- th~ the petitioner hnd not pmvided ~'tlffu:knt evi<i~ regru:ding the beneficiory'~ ~loyment during the two-yw qunlifyi'llg period. To.e petition~:r apperued that decision. by filing Fmm I-290B. Notice of Appeal Qr Mntion, on January 3, 2008., The petitioner's :~pfcallncludcd ~January 10, lOO& l~er tmmRev. Judy Chung of!h~ uMc·~ Omtaru Board ofOlo~al M'Dtistties..{~.BG.M). who (The: bc.neficia..'"Yl i.'! .appr'>ir-Jed ti e. full~time p:ulor in th.e 5as~ PMnsylva.nia Annual Confem.~ cfthe United:MethodistCllmeh. . .The Oeneral Boa.'"l! Qf Gl<;bai MiW~!rles, 11 missi.o.u agwcy of the United 1.lkt:hrniist Cboo.'(:h baID. P'OYiding a ~llllary su.wietnen1 gt3:l1l: fur {the bi."G+efici.acy ..and her ~eJ sio.oe 20CIS. In 2005 and 2006, both {!he tmneficiary and het spouse]' Wet¢ -.· ' ' 1 I....' ~ • • •'"- ;...·,;.~1 •........__ _ ..
  5. 5. Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 53 of 117 .~. :·.;. •: , " ' ' • .:;:••,. •· I · ·: o .. A88294 435 Page5 employed as full-time pastors .in the: New Yocy.: area. In May 2007, {the iJ.M~eficiary] changed her appointment to Philadolph:W at the fpetitioningcll.mch]. While lhe appeal was. pending, USCIS published a rule,farth new r~guJa.tions for special irnn:tigrant religious worker peti.tlons. Supplementary infonnatkm pubiisbed with the new rule specified: "All cases pending on tht rule'.'l effective date •.. wilJ b-e adjudicated under the rwrndards of thi& n.Ue." 73 PC:d. Reg. 12Z76, 7228.5 {Nov. 26, 2008). Accorilin$ly, on Decembe,r 16, 2008, !he AAO rmanded lhepetition to ~:be director for a new decision based on the r~vlsed regulations. On June 10, 2009, the director advi~Ci! the petitwner of the ruvised regulations and ~ted lbe peritioner lO subnrit Mwly-required evidence. 'I'hc. director quoted tlte ne-w regulatiou at & C.F.R. § 204.5(m)(11): Evidence relating ta the aJien's prior employment. Qualifying prior CJ~.petience during the two yc!il's immediately preceding the petition o:r preceding any acceptable break m~ continuity ofthe religious work, musf h!ive occurred aftet the age of 14, and if acquired mthe United States, must hav~ been authorized under United States immigration law. If the alien. Vas employed in the United StateS during :lte two years .immediately preceding the filing of the epplK:atio:n ru1d: (i) Received salaried compensation, the petitioner must submit lRS documentation.that the alien received a salary, such a~ an IRS Fonn W-2 or . certified copi~ of inoonte tax rell.lros. (ri) Received ncn·salaried oompema±.ion, the petitioner must submit IRS documentalioo of the non-salaried eompen:>aticm if available. · (iii) Received no ;alru:y but provided for his or her own support, and provided support for any dependents, !he petitioner must·show how support was mainlained by subtnittil~g with the petition additional documents :;uch as audited financial statements. fio.anci:U institution records. brokerage accoont statements, tro:st docwrumts atgned by an atVmley, or other verifiable ~idence . acceptahle to USCIS. If the aHen was employed outsiO<:: the United States during such two years. the petitioner mmt submit comparable eYirlence:ofthe :religious wo:tk. We note tha! the revjsed USClS regulation <Ct. 8 C.F.R. § :W<t.5(mX4) requires me petitioner wshaw that the beneficiary hllS be:cn working as 11. nrinis.ier or in a qualifying religious occupation or vocation, eiftler abroad Ql' in lawful im.migrntion st:li:I.IS in the United States. C9ntinuoudy for at le~t the two-year period imnlediately preceding the filing ofthe. petition.
  6. 6. Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 54 of 117 To: 212~432698 ~ 1/ Tl1e: d~, jn tl!e uQtlcc, empb~ized the phr45c:: ''must hav.o been .au.! under Uru~ SWe1 i:m.inigratkm law!' In response-. tb.e petltiOliO(''s thea-attorney, YMeSsa Bandrl~ stated thue lil~ beneficiary bad worked approved nooimmlgrantpetition.~Ubeit withdifferent bran_chesof thi! elm~b... '!'he. di~tot ~ed the petition on Marcl!. JS~ 2010, atat' that t:.h~ b<metici<JJ:Y rio!AIC!l h~ R•l 1lOiliJ:'llnigrant &tatu.s by perforrtii.n~ w~rk iu Pfliladclph.!a wh-:n her stt:.ros only ~uthorlzt.d her m wo:rk fur th~ NYAC in NewYOl'k. ' - On appoal from the: l~t ~ion. P'JUtUcl argues that the beneflCinry ''Was. in effect, in the~ Q.II'Iploy cf ~ N~ Ycak Annual Clmfereooe at n1t applicable times." .Rev, Kemty Yl, ~ev. Ounshik Shim.'' su¢ceSsor 0$ supe:rinl:encleni of the NYA.C's Long Island W~ D.i$riet, <:laims that th~: bereficlazy worked fur the NYAC until November .2007~ but ''[d}ue to an adminifilrati~ e..oror. we~ <Jnly rectmtly comPfo!Sared her for her emplo)'!llent fm the period of time r~~ from ~Y :1007 through Nove-mber 10,1l107," · Roland F~des• .genernf,treasurer of the u'BG.tVl' of ~ UMC, states tlmt tbe GBGM "provided a gram to the Now Yolk AntllUll Caofaence to~y [I:M~dicim}''$j ~-- Hestates! Ullfonunatcly, probably b~se it w~ a~v&y ea&i(ll' and more direct to pay [tbe benefitiacy'.s.l saltuy to (the petitioc:e:rl while, [lbe betreilciazyl wax in Phi.l.n&lpiilil, Global MinU:tria,: did not pay scl.l!r)' to the New Yru:k C~ during. thht lima In.stetxd, itpaid her Waey to [thepedtiooerj•.•• ,. 1n ar&u to rev~e th~e ~~ . . . orobal Mittismes ~qu~ t!wt [the ~ltionet(~ rorurn to GlQb.&l M"ILlmries. • •• tho (o!.&l Gllfit !)( the. ~"lt fru.lcl.s thm.Globlll Wiiistnes paid t9 (the peti,tionerl wthc.r han to tim N~w York Confe.rentc. ~ pctitii>iKI'} has :reNro.ed tbe full wnonnt of the grant funds ro G1obrrll.1inDaies lind Global Mi.ciruies ~paid thnt sante tltnQUUt. tO he New-"York COnfer~. Thb Nt"-w Yozk Coofercnc:. has now rtp&d {1M b~w!ary} for llio period from May I, ?..«rl <hroU,Bb • ' Novernbc:r 5, 2007. l.he~oner submitt!Ul.docurru:n~t!on s!Jowing the transfut.ooffunds .a$ ~rib~ above. Co~l ~es t1:u:t we liliould accept tllis trr:enpt to retroadvcly a. qualifyitlg employment Silnutlon; ~ . •i. - Nunc pro tunc rt.>lld shquld be recogcized ll1. thls m.cuer. Such eq'Uii:abl.e re&f .hM~n long and QbtillgUished histocy in the field at l,m.m.ig:ration law. since 194{) (see matter m L., 11 & N. Dee. 1 (A.G. 1~)). the use of tbc nunc .P..-o tunc dootrlne is reo.u-n aliens tO rlltP"Siii{)D.·m~J.tb.ich.~y would.b,avebeen bu~ for a ~igciflt:a11t error in their immigrationproc~. ooe El.iward{s] v, T~uon sud NatrL"allzetion .....__ - --- ~·· '.
  7. 7. Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 55 of 117 ,l·,;.~ . • ". , , . ::.~,.~.~... •.. • . ... .... . I ~ • L •''• ........ A88 294-435 P<1ge7 Service 393 F.3d 299 (2nd Circuit, 2004), which recognized that nunc pro tunc rclicf should be :roadeS"llailllbie mimmlztatiOn(ll;SeS. ' . Since that denial was the result of an intemal administJ:ative t.rrOI" within the. Uniloo Method1st Church, which has now been con-ec:red, we request that you consider [the beneficiary] to have been comctly tmlp!oyed by her nuthorized petitioner, the New YO{k Annual Conference, at_aU applicable times, nunc J?l'O tunc. 1he case fuw cited above, however. do~ not ~nppo.rt counsel's atgument. We quare. he!:e, from the cltcd Edwards decision! The equitable remedy of nunc pro l:unc (Hwrnlly for then'•) relief has a lcmg and distinguished bhtocy in the field of immigration la.w..•. a matter is adjndicated nunc pro tunc, it is as if it ~e done as of the time that it should have been done. Se.e Matter ofA·,:; L & N, Dec. 168, 172,..73 (BIA 1948) (remedying .a. prior failure to Wtl.lve grounds of exclusion by entering an oril..Y nunc pro tunc). · . ,•Vlhtie OL.lf circuit hrul not pre'iliou.sty explicitly invoked the nuncpro tunc doctrinCl .in ordering relief for BiA error, we. have. in substance, awarded jll£1: such Ielicl' where equ.ity reqllrred. See Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98. ll&·l9 (2d Cir.2.003)~ see ~~so l;rvO_mi v. INS, 232. F.3d 124, 130 n- 4 (2d Cir.2COO) (noting that mmc tune relief has lang 'been available to .remedy error in immigration OlSeS). It is mus beyond qu~lion that .l[l) awaxd of mmc pro tunc .may. in an appropri<!te ciicuuJStanre, be granted as a means ofrectifying ro:ror in immigration proceedinss. Id, at 308-09 (end."l.ole omitted). G:mecally, n~ pro nmc relief ill a remedy for or judicial error by the government ns a mcw1:rt !{) prevent inequity or injustice. It is: oot a means fOJ a J?Ciitioner, or any .rel.ated private enticy, to correct il.> own ennrs 01:' :retroactively change di~quclifying citcumst:arices ofits own.making. An applicant m petitioner roust establish thi!it he or she is eligible. for the requested bendi~ at the tirrn:: offiling the appli.cation or petitinn. S C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). This provl<>ion would. in many con~, be meaningless if M applicant or petitioner couid erase dis91Eilifying circumstances simply by makin.g cl'langes after tbe fm:t. nr.d then dern.andlng thatusas consider those changes to have alreadyboon in effect as of the filing dale. USCIS and its predea-.sso.r,· the Immigration and Naturalization Servi~ have consistently held that the appliCWJ.t or petitioru::t' must e..~tablish eUg1b!Jity at the· time offiling. See Matter ifIwmmi, 22 I&N Dec. 169. 175 (Commr. 1998); Mafter of Katigbak, 14I&..N Dec. 4St 49 (Rfgl. Commt. 1971). Si.n:ill.arl:y, lbc llo:u:d cf Immigration Appeal& has found that qeatlng new .:iocumen:ta.!ioo <~fie:' the fact. to create ciron.mstancc11 more fayorable to the petitione:t or the b~eficiary. calls into question the credibility and evidentimy weight{)£ the ne.w dOC'Umentation. See Matter of.BuenD, 21 l&N Dee. 102~,
  8. 8. Case 2:15-cv-05037-RBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/09/15 Page 56 of 117 ' . A8& 294435 P'<tge& -... 1033 (BIA 1997); MatrerojMa~ 20 I&NDec. 394 (.BIA 1991): Maner vfSerna, I6l&NDec. 643.645 (BIA. 1978) (disCUSQlng the evidentiary weigbt accord~.d to delayed birth ceYtiflCa.tes in immigrant visa proceOO.i.ngs}. Counsel cites no case law to show that any court has discarded these regulatirnl!i or bindmg pr~t decilion!l ou the ground.~ fuat ~yare incons'lstoot with rmnt: prG t1mc relief. We r«all Roland fernandes•s dnim that the GBGM ~m p;,.yin£ the bcoeficiary t..hrough the petition~ catl)er thm1 througp tbe NYAC '1 probably b«auw il was admini~uatively easier 11110 In(lre direct." The petitioner itsetf,.however. hilS submitted ma~nl l.har. appeatS (I) coottadicc !Mt claim. TI1e record of proceeding contains a ~page "'' of the "Chinese l'viinistry Initiative I May 1- September 30. 2001:· &ted Qaober 2. 'lJJ(JJ. and signed by Rev. C?.!lnlecki. In that document, ~v. Czarnecki: reported "some in.i!:i;U difficulty in getting the rush follow r.~ic] straightened oul," during which time fue petitioner ~d fue "from our escrow accoUlu:" until paymcnrs from the C~GM could begin. This ''difficult.)'• is not consistent wil:h thl} 2010 claim that the r:.ew payment mute was ••administratively easier.'' We. note that at uo time does frm 2007 •'Snmmary.. refei to the . beneflciary as an NYAC employee wbo is somehow an !om to the petitioning <:hlltth .in Phillldclphia.. The 2007 "Summaryu is wholly L'OOSili~ent wifu the petitioner's reference [Q a "{c}bange of lliilp1oycr'' 01l Fonni-129. For tll.e teaSQilS described above. we reject the argument on appeal thst the b~eficiary actually remnined 1U'l NYAC empl~yee even utter :m~ relocated to Philadelphia and the petitioner began paying ler and consistently referring 1u ber llli llie petitiora•s ow11 employee. However !he J:~.titioner now chooses 1o portray the situation, in April/May 2010 the b~efici~-y ·left one ''organiuu.ional unit'' of the UMC- Tian Fn UMC, under the N'iAC's jurisdiction- 11nd began working for a different "organization.a1 unit- the petitioni[lg cbutch. under !he EPC•s juri~di.ction. '11Jis b precisely the: situation described in the USCIS-regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(r)(6) (2007). Howe.vcr ooe may wish to conturt the definition of "c.n)ploy"' (for Instance, by arguing th;at the ulti.!mtt:e source of the bcm.erl.ciai)''s salary rc.rnained tlle GBGM), tl.le plain wording of the regulation requires the filing arul 3pprova1 of a n~w Form I-129 petition whenever ~[a] dHl'erent or additional orglllili..atiomzl unit of the Ieligious dr!:nominnti.oo seek[sJ to employ or eng(Jge the Si! ~f ~ religious woiker.,• It is indisputable tha.t two cifferent organiz.atjon<IJ. units of th~ UM'C, with ium- O'Vel'l!lpping geographic jurisdictions, engaged the beneficlary•s services at a tim.e when only the NYAC had autlunizati(}n to do so. The bmden of proof in these proceedings rests solely wilh. the petitioner. Section 291 of lhe Act, 8U.S.C. § 1361. Tbe petitioner has not met lhat burdep. Acoordmgly, the AAO will <jjsmiss the appeaL ORDER: The appeal il; dismissed.