834 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.

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 AAO does not announce new conStructions of law not establish agency policy through non-precedent decisions.

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.

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.

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 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 , and the beneficiary did not satisfy the minimum level of experience stated on the Form ETA 750.

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.