12 decisions

On appeal, we affirmed the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's possession of the minimum educational requirements of the offered position.

The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition on the ground that the evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary has the requisite educational degree to qualify for the offered position under the terms o f the labor certification.

The Acting Director of the Texas Service Center subsequently revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that based on inconsistencies in the record, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possessed the experience required by the labor certification as of the priority date.

The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that based on the issuance date of the Beneficiary's bachelor's degree diploma, the Beneficiary could not show.

The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established its ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onward.

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.

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.