1,558 decisions

On October 15, 2012, the Director denied the petition on the ground that the documentation of record did not show that the petitioner , is the successor-in-interest to the 1 This section of the Act provides for immigrant classification to members of the professions holding advanced degrees whose services are sought by employers in the United States.

In addition, the Director found that the record failed to establish that the beneficiary had the requisite five years of qualifYing experience.

The director determined that the petitioner had multiple Form 1- 140 petitions, either pending or approved but not yet adjusted, and that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that it had the continuing ability to pay all the approved of the beneficiaries' wages beginning on the priority date of the visa petition.

The director revoked the approval of the petition on July 2, 2012, stating that the petitioner had failed to establish its ability to pay the proffered wage as of the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence.

5(a)(4) states that a motion which does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed.

Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that it had the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage and had failed to establish that the beneficiary met the minimum requirements of the job offered.

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.

The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence.

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.

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 director determined that the petitioner had filed multiple petitions and that it had not established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary and the multiple beneficiaries the proffered wage amounts beginning on the priority date of the current visa petition.

Therefore, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position.

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.

The director found that "the beneficiary has not met all of the terms listed on the application for labor certification" and that "the beneficiary cannot be found to be qualified for the position.

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.

The case will be remanded to the director for further review and entry of a new decision.

The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest.

The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest.

The Director's decision will be withdrawn, and the petition remanded for a new decision.