777 decisions

As set forth in the director's December 6, 2013 denial, the primary issue is that the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary's five years of progressive work experience.

The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish the ability to pay the proffered wage as of the July 22, 2007, priority date and denied the petition on July 14, 2009.

Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary satisfied the minimum level of education stated on the labor certification .

The appeal will be remanded in accordance with the following.

Therefore, the petition does not qualify for advanced degree professional classification There is no provision in statute or regulation that compels U.

The director denied the petition after concluding that record did not establish that the beneficiary had met the minimum educational requirements of the labor certification as of the March 27, 2012 priority date.

The director's decision denying the petition states that the letters submitted did not demonstrate that the beneficiary had five years of progressive experience in positions of increasing complexity and involving greater responsibility.

The director determined in the decisions dated February 1, 2013 and August 26, 2013 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.

1 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.

These documents do not establish that the beneficiary's OPT employment with the petitioner extended until February 2007 as the petitioner claims.

" As the motion was not accompanied by or supported by new evidence or arguments based on relevant precedent decisions, the motion does not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider.

The director also found that as the PGD issued to the beneficiary in business administration had not been awarded by an accredited university, he could not qualify for preference classification as a professional on this basis.

The director determined that the ETA Form 9089 failed to demonstrate that the job requires a professional holding an advanced degree or the equivalent, or an alien of exceptional ability and, therefore, the beneficiary cannot be found qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability.

Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the beneficiary did not meet the job qualifications stated on the labor certification.

Thus, the petition will be remanded for the director to determine whether the beneficiary is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and that the offered position requires, at a minimum, a [p5] (b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION Page 5 professional holding an advanced degree.

The director's decision denying the petition concludes that the petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the proffered wage since the priority date.

The director determined that the petitioner had not established that it had the continuing abili~y to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the priority date of the visa petition.

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.