8 decisions

The director's decision denying the petition states that the evidence submitted did not demonstrate that the beneficiary had 26 months of experience.

For the reasons stated above, the AAO affirms the director's decision that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the minimum requirements of the offered position set forth on the labor certification as of the priority date.

The director determined that the petitioner had not established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition.

Since Part H-14 provides that an individual can qualify for the offered position with less than a baccalaureate followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty, the petition does not qualify for advanced degree professional classification.

Furthermore, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the evaluator's statement is based upon reliable evidence; in that the information provided in the employment statements submitted by the petitioner contradict each other and the statements conflict with the beneficiary ' s sworn statements on the ETA Form 9089.

The matter will be remanded to the director for further action, consideration, and the entry of a new decision in accordance with the decision below.

In the instant case, the evidence contained in the record does not show that the marriage was not entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws.

Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the beneficiary did not qualify for the second preference classification and that the beneficiary did meet the job qualifications stated on the alien employment certification before the priority date.