36 decisions

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.

2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that, while the Petitioner has established eligibility for the EB-2 visa category, he has not demonstrated the merits of his waiver request.

[p2] the motion to reopen, withdraw the Director's decision, and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis.

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for EB-2 classification and that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.

The Director determined that the Beneficiary did not qualify for classification as an advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, or meet the minimum requirements on the labor certification to qualify for the job offered.

0 • The Director concluded that the record at the time of the petition's approval did not establish the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage.

The Director found that the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary's five years of progressive post-bachelor work experience in the job offered or in an alternate occupation.

The director found that the beneficiary did not meet the requirements for classification as an advanced degree professional.

The director's decision denying the petition states that the evidence submitted did not demonstrate that the beneficiary had 26 months of experience.

We did not, however, find the visa petition to be approvable as the record failed to establish that the beneficiary held an advanced degree in a field required by the labor certification.

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'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 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.

Since Part H-14 provides that an individual can qualify for the offered position with less than a baccalaureate followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty, the petition does not qualify for advanced degree professional classification.

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.

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.