PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
SustainedEB-2 · Appeal

Occupation not stated

Engineering · decided 2015-04-03 · NSC · APR032015_04B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

Decided under the old NYSDOT test, replaced by Matter of Dhanasar on Dec 27, 2016. Useful for background only.

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

Upon review of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and in response to a Request for Evidence issued by us, we conclude that the petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that the beneficiary had all the education, training, and experience specified on the ETA Form 9089 as of the priority date of May 14, 2013. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • The petition will be approved. See in text
  • Accordingly, the petition is approved under section 203(b)(2) the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). See in text
  • ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and the petition is approved. See in text

Main reasons given

  • Upon review of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and in response to a Request for Evidence issued by us, we conclude that the petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that the beneficiary had all the education, training, and experience specified on the ETA Form 9089 as of the priority date of May 14, 2013. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (4) AAO finding (1)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    DATE:APR 0 3 2015 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER · IN RE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services FILE: · PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced

    Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)

    ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

    INSTRUCTIONS:

    Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through' non­ precedent decisions. All of the documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office.

    Thank you,

    )h.; j;--

    Ron Rosenberg

    Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov

    NON-PRECEDENT DECISION

    DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. The petition will be approved.

    The petitioner describes itself as a structural engineering business�. It seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a structural engineer. The petitioner requests classification of the beneficiary as an advanced degree professional pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).

    At issue in this case is whether the ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification) supports the petitioner's request for classification , of the beneficiary, as an advanced degree professional.

    We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004).

    To be eligible for approval, a beneficiary must have all the education, training, and experience specified on the labor certification as of the petition's priority date. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N 158 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977). The priority date of the petition is May 14, 2013, which is the date the labor certification was accepted for processing by the DOL. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5( d). The Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) was filed on February 18, 2014.

    Upon review of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and in response to a Request for Evidence issued by us, we conclude that the petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that the beneficiary had all the education, training, and experience specified on the ETA Form 9089 as of the priority date of May 14, 2013. The beneficiary may be classified as an advanced degree professional pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). Accordingly, the petition is approved under section 203(b)(2) the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).

    The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has met that burden.

    ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and the petition is approved.