1,470 decisions

Upon review, the AAO finds that the motion to reconsider does not qualify for consideration under 8 C.

However, the AAO determined that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses all the experience requirements indicated on the labor certification, with five years of qualifying progressive employment experience in the job offered.

Therefore, since an individual can qualify for the offered position with a degree less than a baccalaureate (followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty), the petition does not qualify for advanced degree professional classification.

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 revoked the approval of the petition after concluding that the record did not establish that the benericiary was qualified for the offered position and that the labor certification was gained through fra11d or willful misrepresentation of a material fact.

Therefore, since the beneficiary's master's degree from is not from an accredited institution of higher education, it does not qualify as an advanced degree within the meaning of 8 C.

The director further determined that because the labor certification in the instant matter would allow for the combination of education, experience, and/or training that is "equivalent" to a bachelor's degree, the labor certification did not meet the classification of an E21, a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability.

The director determined that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed the employment experience required on the ETA Form 9089 and denied the petition accordingly.

The AAO affirmed the director's decision and also found that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary qualified for the proffered position.

The director also found that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary possessed the required employment experience.

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 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 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 , and the beneficiary did not satisfy the minimum level of experience stated on the Form ETA 750.

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.