1,386 decisions

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.

The director determined that, as the beneficiary would not be functioning fully as a registered nurse, the offered position did not qualify for Schedule A designation.

As the record does not establish that the failure to file the motion within 30 days of the decision was reasonable and beyond the affected party's control, the motion is untimely and must be dismissed for that reason.

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.

The director's denial decision concludes that the petitioner did not demonstrate the ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage from the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence.

Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the evidence did not establish that the beneficiary possessed the required degree in the major field listed on the labor certification.

The director's decision denying the petition concludes that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed the 60 months of experience in the offered position as required by the terms of the labor certification and the requested preference classification; and that the petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date.

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.

The director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the priority date.

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.

Further, the record fails to demonstrate that the director's decision was based on derogatory information that would have required notice to the petitioner.

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 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.