CHRISTO'S, 26 I. & N. Dec. 537

Petitioner (a U.S. restaurant) filed an I-140 immigrant petition for a beneficiary to be classified as a skilled worker; an approved ETA-750 labor certification established the priority date.
The Vermont Service Center Director revoked the previously approved I-140, finding the beneficiary lacked the required experience on the labor certification.
Separately, a marriage‑based I-130 and concurrent I-485 were filed for the same beneficiary; during the I-485 interview the beneficiary disavowed the marriage and said the submitted marriage certificate was fictitious.
The Boston District Director denied the I-130 as abandoned and denied the I-485 on inadmissibility grounds (misrepresentation under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)).
On appeal, the AAO initially affirmed revocation of the I-140 based on the beneficiary’s qualifications and independently concluded section 204(c) (the marriage‑fraud bar) applied because it inferred the beneficiary had conspired to enter into a sham marriage; the AAO later reopened, received supplemental evidence, and reconsidered.
After reopening, the AAO found the petitioner cured evidentiary inconsistencies as to the beneficiary’s qualifications and concluded the record showed the beneficiary neither entered into nor attempted or conspired to enter into a marriage to evade immigration laws; approval of the I-140 was reinstated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether beneficiary possessed required experience as of the priority date	Petitioner: supplemental objective evidence resolves inconsistencies and shows beneficiary met ETA-750 requirements	VSC Director: beneficiary lacked requisite experience, so I-140 approval should be revoked	Held: AAO found petitioner met its burden; beneficiary had required experience; I-140 approved
Whether section 204(c) marriage‑fraud bar applies where a fictitious marriage document was submitted	Petitioner: beneficiary credibly established the purported marriage never occurred and he did not enter/attempt/conspire to enter a marriage	AAO (initially): evidence supported inference of conspiracy to enter a sham marriage; Boston Director: marriage petition abandoned and I-485 denied for misrepresentation	Held: On rehearing, AAO held 204(c) does not apply because beneficiary did not enter, attempt, or conspire to enter a marriage; submission of a fictitious certificate alone is not enough for 204(c)
Effect of false marriage documents on admissibility	Petitioner: (implicit) relief as to I-140 should not be denied on 204(c) grounds	USCIS/Boston Director: false documents support inadmissibility under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) at adjustment stage	Held: AAO noted such misrepresentations can render applicant inadmissible under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) when adjudicating the I-485, but that is a separate determination not resolved by the I-140 approval

Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009) (statutory text must be enforced according to its plain meaning)
Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1975) (approval of a visa petition does not guarantee admission or adjustment of status)
Dor v. Dist. Dir., INS, 891 F.2d 997 (2d Cir. 1989) (AAO conducts de novo appellate review)