2,079 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 denied the petition accordingly.

The director denied the petition on January 23, 2001 concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is the holder of an advanced degree, or equivalent, or is of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business.

bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree and therefore does not qualify for classification as an advanced degree professional.

The director determined that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed the employment experience required on the ETA Form 9089 and denied the petition accordingly.

As the petitioner has not had an opportunity to address the issue related to the sponsorship of multiple beneficiaries or whether the beneficiary's degree is in one of the subjects required by the terms of the labor certification, we will remand the petition back to the director to allow the petitioner to address these issues.

The evidence submitted does not establish that the petition is supported by an approved Form ETA 9089, or that the beneficiary possesses an advanced degree or exceptional ability, or that a bona fide job opportunity exists.

The petition is not approvable, however, as the beneficiary does not meet the minimum education qualifications of the position.

The director found that the record did not establish that the beneficiary held a U.

The AAO affirmed the director's decision and also found that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary qualified for the proffered position.

The director also found that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary possessed the required employment experience.

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's decision denying the petition concluded that the record did not establish that the petitioner had the ability to pay the proffered wage as of the priority date.

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 late appeal did not meet the requirements of a motion and forwarded the matter to the AAO.

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.