777 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.

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.

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

bachelor's degree, 1 therefore the beneficiary did not possess the education required by the advanced degree professional classification2 and did not meet 1 The record contains copies of the diploma and transcripts for the beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Commerce degree from India and a postgraduate diploma from the , India.

As the director did not address these issues in the decision, the petition will be remanded for the director to consider the issues and enter a new decision.

Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the beneficiary did not satisfy the minimum level of education stated on the labor certification.

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.

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