865 decisions

Nevertheless, the record does not establish that the petitioner · did not intend to employ the beneficiary at the time of filing the application for labor certificCJ.

S not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States.

The director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the labor certification required an advanced degree for the position so that the category requested was inapplicable and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date onwards.

1 The director's decision to revoke the petition will be withdrawn, and the matter will be remanded for further consideration.

The director's decision will be withdrawn, and the matter will be remanded to the director for further action, consideration, and the entry of a new decision in accordance with below.

The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions with progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to a master's degree, but that the petitioner has not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States.

If the petitioner does not establish that it employed and paid the beneficiary an aJ,llount at least equal to the proffered wage during that period, users will next examine the net income figure reflected on the petitioner's federal income tax return, without consideration of depreciation or other expenses.

The petition is remanded to the director for consideration of the issue stated above.

The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States.

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 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.

qecision denying the petition stated that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had the required experienCe as stated on the labor certification .

The director's decision denying the petition concludes that the petitioner has not established that it intended to employ the beneficiary in the area of intended employment.

The director determined that the petitioner had failed to establish that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage from the priority date of December 9, 2004, onward.

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.

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.

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.