recent immigrant worker petition aao decisions oct 5th 2015
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 17
RECENT IMMIGRANT WORKER VISA PETITIONS Compiled By Joseph P. Whalen (Monday, October 5, 2015)
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
E11, EB-1A “ALIENS OF EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY”
SEP042015_01B2203.pdf
Matter of H-D-, ID# 13587 (AAO Sept. 4, 2015)
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION
SUMMARILY DISMISSED
The Petitioner, a volleyball coach, seeks classification as an "alien of
extraordinary ability" in athletics. ……. The Petitioner has not specifically
addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional
evidence. As the Petitioner did not provide any specific statement or
argument regarding the basis of his appeal, the appeal must be summarily
dismissed.
SEP082015_01B2203.pdf
Matter of M-C-R-, ID# 13190 (AAO Sept. 8, 2015)
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION
SUMMARILY DISMISSED
The Petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in
business. …
The Petitioner filed the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140)
on January 14, 2014, without any supporting documentation. On August
Page 2 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
25, 2014, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) advising the
Petitioner to submit evidence to satisfy the evidentiary requirements set
forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory
criteria. Although the RFE was properly addressed to the Petitioner's
address of record, she did not respond to the RFE. The Director denied the
petition on December 15, 2014, because the Petitioner had not submitted
documentation meeting the evidentiary requirements at 8 C.F.R §
204.5(h)(3).
The Petitioner filed the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) on
January 16, 2015, without any supporting evidence relating to her eligibility
for the classification sought. In Part 3 of the Form I- 29GB, the Petitioner
checked box "l.b." indicating "[m]y brief and/or additional evidence will be
submitted to the AAO within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal." Part 4
of the Form I-290B instructs the petitioner to "[p]rovide a statement that
specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision
being appealed." In her statement, the Petitioner asserts that she did not
receive the Director's RFE, and that she contacted U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services to request that the RFE be re-sent.
The Petitioner indicates that on November 25, 2014, the Director remailed
the RFE to her address of record, and then subsequently denied the petition
on December 15, 2014. The Petitioner further states that "additional
documents will be submitted to the AAO in 30 days." The appeal was filed
on January 16, 2015. As of this date, more than seven months later, we have
received nothing further. The Petitioner's statement does not identify any
Page 3 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the Director's decision. She does not
specifically challenge any of the Director's findings or point to specific
errors in the Director's determination that she had not satisfied the
evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3).
SEP082015_02B2203.pdf
Matter of B-C-, ID# 12974 (AAO Sept. 8, 2015)
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION DISMISSED
The Petitioner, an individual, seeks classification as an individual "of
extraordinary ability" in the sciences. ….
….. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial
evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least
three of the ten regulatory criteria.
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement with additional and
previously submitted materials. For the reasons discussed below, we agree
that the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification
sought. ….
SEP092015_01B2203.pdf
Matter of R-M-R-, ID# 13044 (AAO Sept. 9, 2015)
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION DISMISSED
The Petitioner, a violist and mandolinist, seeks classification as an "alien of
extraordinary ability" in the arts. …
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial
evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires
Page 4 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least
three of the ten regulatory criteria.
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. The
Petitioner asserts that he meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §
204.5 (h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and (viii). In addition, the
Petitioner states that the Director incorrectly held the petitioner to a higher
standard of proof.
We agree with the Petitioner that the standard of proof in this matter is
"preponderance of the evidence." The "preponderance of the evidence"
standard, however, does not relieve the Petitioner from satisfying the basic
evidentiary requirements of the statute and regulations. Therefore, if the
statute and regulations require specific evidence, the petitioner is required
to submit that evidence. In most administrative immigration proceedings,
the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she
is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369
(AAO 2010). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence
alone but by its quality. Id. at 376. In the present matter, the documentation
submitted does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5
(h) (3), and, therefore, that he satisfies the regulatory requirement of three
categories of evidence.
The Petitioner alleges that he "is being treated in a prejudicial fashion by
the Service" in violation of his due process rights. The Petitioner states:
"The RFE [request for evidence] which was issued in this case is dated 18
Page 5 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
__________________________________
July 2014 yet, the very envelope in which these very important documents
were mailed to the undersigned has a postmark of 21 July 2014." The record
reflects that the Director dated-stamped the RFE on Friday, July 18, 2014,
but it was not postmarked until Monday, July 21, 2014. As the RFE was
mailed rather than personally served, the Director afforded the Petitioner
an additional three days in which to submit his response in accordance with
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b). Page 10 of the RFE stated: "You must
submit the requested information within eighty four (84) days from the date
of this letter (87 days if this notice was received by mail)." As the Petitioner
was afforded an additional three days and his RFE response was timely
received by the Director on October 10, 2014, the Petitioner has not shown
that his ability to file a timely and meaningful response was affected by the
mailing delay of one business day or how the delay demonstrates that he
was treated in a prejudicial fashion by USCIS in violation of his due process
rights.
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the Petitioner has not
established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. …
Had the Petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three
evidentiary categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next
step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence
in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level
of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the
alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. §
Page 6 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
4 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact
and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice,
381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future
proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a
final merits determination as the office that made the last
decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see
also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number
0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003);
8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19
I&N Dec. 458,460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS,
now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to
decide visa petitions).
204.5(h) (2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the
Petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that the Petitioner has
failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting
evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R
§ 204.5(h)(3) and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although
we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in
Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a finding that
the Petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the
classification sought. 4 ….
SEP112015_01B2203.pdf
Matter of H-S-, ID# 13009 (AAO Sept. 11, 2015)
District Judge RICHARD A. JONES presided over Rijal
v. USCIS, and he stated that “…USCIS Erred in Its
Determination That Mr. Rijal Had Not Satisfied Any of the
Alternate Evidentiary Criteria.”
“… Both Mr. Rijal and the USCIS often seem to assume that
satisfying three criteria is the end of the "extraordinary ability"
inquiry. They are mistaken. Id. at 1121 (noting that "whether
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION DISMISSED
The Petitioner, an individual who works in the field of business
development and commercialization, seeks classification as a person "of
extraordinary ability" in business. …
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign
nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been
recognized in their field through extensive documentation. The Director
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least
three of the ten regulatory criteria.
Page 7 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
petitioner has provided at least three types of evidence" is
merely an "antecedent procedural question").
That mistake is repeated throughout the USCIS's May 2009
decision. For example, the USCIS concluded that that UNICEF
prize was an "internationally recognized award of excellence in
the petitioner's field." AR at 117. Nonetheless, USCIS ruled
that Mr. Rijal had not provided "[d]ocumentation of [his]
receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes
or awards for excellence in [his] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. §
204.5(h)(3)(i), because, in its view, "[a] single prize, awarded
four years prior . . ., does not provide evidence of the petitioner's
sustained acclaim and is not sufficient to establish that he meets
this criterion." This was an error. The evidentiary criterion does
not require that the "lesser" prize demonstrate sustained
acclaim. It merely requires the receipt of the prize, a showing
that USCIS concedes that Mr. Rijal made. The inquiry into
sustained acclaim is part of the "final merits determination" of
whether the evidence demonstrates extraordinary
ability. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121
******
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does
not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian
v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review
where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits
determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash.
2011) (affirming our proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d.
1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C.
2013) (finding that we appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter
of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth
is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality"
and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines
"each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to
determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true").
[Bullshit! Rijal did not affirm proper application! It was harmless error!]
E13, EB-1C CERTAIN MULTINATIONAL EXECUTIVES & MANAGERS
SEP102015_01B4203.pdf
Matter of S-S-, Inc., ID# 13216 (AAO Sept. 10, 2015)
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION DISMISSED
The Petitioner, an exporter of granite and marble, seeks to classify the
beneficiary as a multinational manager or executive. …
The Director denied the petition on January 13, 2010, concluding that the
Petitioner did not establish that it had been doing business in the United
Page 8 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
States for at least one year prior to the petition's filing date, or that the
Beneficiary's duties, either with his former foreign employer or in the
United States, were in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity.
SEP112015_01B4203.pdf
Matter of C-S-, Inc., ID# (AAO Sept. 11, 2015)
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION DISMISSED
The Petitioner, a company engaged in software development and sales,
seeks to classify the Beneficiary, its chief executive officer, as a
multinational manager or executive. ….
The Director determined that the record did not establish that the
Beneficiary will be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive
capacity.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the company's small size is not a
disqualifying factor, and that the Beneficiary has contributed to the
beneficiary's growth in his role as its CEO. The Petitioner submits a legal
brief and supporting exhibits.
************
B. Analysis
For the reasons to be discussed below, we find that the Petitioner has not
established that the Beneficiary will be employed in a qualifying
managerial or executive capacity.
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity each have two parts.
First, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary performs the high level
responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner
Page 9 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified
responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-
day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991
WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991).
The Petitioner devotes a considerable portion of the appeal to the assertion
that the company has grown as a result of the Beneficiary's leadership.
Evidence of growth would not, by itself, demonstrate that the Beneficiary
qualifies as a multinational manager or executive. Further, the record does
not support the Petitioner's claim. The Petitioner asserts that the response
to the RFE included "evidence of significant growth of the company." The
record does not support this assertion. ….
SEP112015_02B4203.pdf
Matter of X-D-M-E-, LLC, ID# 13192 (AAO Sept. 11,
2015)
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION DISMISSED
The Petitioner, a real estate developer, seeks to permanently employ the
Beneficiary under the immigrant classification of multinational executive
or manager. …..
The Director denied the petition on December 15, 2014, concluding that the
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has been or will be
employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity.
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a legal brief, supported by copies of
previously submitted materials. The Petitioner contends that the
Beneficiary has worked and will work in a qualifying managerial capacity,
and that the Director's decision is not consistent with the evidence of record.
Page 10 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
EB-2 Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of Exceptional Ability & Applicant
for a National Interest Waiver (NIW) of Job Offer & PERM Labor Certification
SEP102015_01B5203.pdf
Matter of H-N-N-B-, ID# 14524 (AAO Sept. 10, 2015)
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION SUSTAINED
The Petitioner, an individual, seeks classification as a member of the
professions holding an advanced degree. …
The Petitioner seeks employment as an Assistant Professor of Geography
and Geographic Information Science researcher. The Petitioner asserts that
an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor
certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The Director
found that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the
professions holding an advanced degree, but that the Petitioner has not
established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be
in the national interest of the United States.
**************
The Petitioner filed the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140)
on March 3, 2014. The Director determined that the Petitioner's impact and
influence on his field did not satisfy the third prong of the NYSDOT
national interest analysis. Regarding his planned research activities, the
Petitioner stated: "I intend to continue my investigations on how we could
improve the methods used to characterize land cover[,] land use[,] and
water resources by integrating geospatial techniques with landscape spatial
complexity metrics and machine learning algorithms."
************
The aforementioned letters of support and extensive citation of the
Petitioner's work by others in the field are sufficient to demonstrate that the
Page 11 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
Petitioner's research has had a degree of influence on the field of geographic
information science. The evidence in the record establishes the significance
of this Petitioner's research, as opposed to the general area of research, and
identifies specific benefits attributable to his work that have influenced the
field as a whole. We therefore find that the Petitioner's past record of
achievement justifies projection that he will serve the national interest to a
significantly greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the
same minimum qualifications.
SEP112015_01B5203.pdf
This one lipped through the cracks. It was not assigned a
citation spring and is in the old style.
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was
denied by the Director, Texas Service Center (Director). It is now on appeal
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The case will be
remanded to the Director for further consideration and the issuance of a
new decision.
The petitioner describes itself as a staffing and recruitment company. …
**************
The petition is for a Schedule A occupation. A Schedule A occupation is
one codified at 20 C.F.R. § 656.5(a) for which the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL) has determined that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who
are able, willing, qualified and available, and that the wages and working
conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers will not be adversely
affected by the employment of aliens in such occupations. The current list
of Schedule A occupations includes professional nurses. Id. "Professional
nurse" is defined in 20 C.F.R. § 656.5(a)(3)(ii) as follows:
Page 12 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
Professional nurse means a person who applies the art and science
of nursing which reflects comprehension of principles derived from
the physical, biological and behavioral sciences. Professional
nursing generally includes making clinical judgments involving the
observation, care and counsel of persons requiring nursing care;
administering of medicines and treatments prescribed by the
physician or dentist; and participation in the activities for the
promotion of health and prevention of illness in others. A program
of study for professional nurses generally includes theory and
practice in clinical areas such as obstetrics, surgery, pediatrics,
psychiatry, and medicine.
Petitions for Schedule A occupations do not require the petitioner to test
the labor market and obtain a certified ETA Form 9089 from· the DOL
prior to filing the petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS). Instead, the petition is filed directly with USCIS with an
uncertified ETA Form 9089 in duplicate. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(a)(2) and
(k)(4); see also 20 C.F.R. § 656.15.1
___________________
1 The instant petition was filed without the requisite ETA Form 9089. The
petitioner furnished an uncertified ETA Form 9089 in duplicate on July 26,
2013, in response to the Director's Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) the
petition.
*************
The Director concluded that the proffered position, because of its
supervisory elements, cannot be considered a Schedule A occupation.
Page 13 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
Accordingly, the petition could not be approved in the absence of a DOL-
certified ETA Form 9089. The petitioner filed a timely appeal on
September 12, 2013, accompanied by a brief from counsel and supporting
documentation.
The petitioner asserts that the Director erred in finding that the proffered
nursing position is not a Schedule A occupation simply because there are
supervisory components in the job. According to the petitioner, the practice
of "registered nursing" includes supervision and management.
****************
In reviewing the decision, we find that the job description might be
reviewed in consideration of specific duties to determine whether such
duties may be encompassed within the definition of a professional nurse.
The Director may wish to issue a Request for Evidence to obtain further
information about the issue and the issues identified below, allowing the
petitioner a reasonable time to respond. Accordingly, this petition will be
remanded to the Director for further review. The Director should take into
consideration any materials submitted by the petitioner in response to any
request. The Director shall then issue a new decision.
EB-3 PROFESSIONAL or SKILLED WORKERS or OTHER WORKERS
SEP152015_01B6203.pdf
Matter of V-B-H-S-, ID# 13157 (AAO Sept. 15, 2015)
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION REMANDED
The Petitioner, a healthcare business, seeks to permanently employ the
Beneficiary in the United States as a registered nurse for immigrant
classification as a professional. ….
The petition is for a Schedule A occupation. ….
Page 14 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
SEE: Matter of Dial Auto Successor-In-Interest Test
The petition was initially filed on September 12, 2006 and approved on July
2, 2007. On October 14, 2014, the Director issued a notice of intent to
revoke (NOIR) the approval of the petition because information indicated
that a change in business structure may have occurred. On December 25,
2014, the Director revoked the approval of the petition, noting that no
response was received to the NOIR and that according to 9 FAM (Foreign
Affairs Manual) 40.51 N4.6-1, a new Form I-140 should have been filed
due to the buyout or merger of your organization with another company.
You appealed this decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).
*******
First, we note that the Petitioner asserts it did not receive the Director's
NOIR and the record indicates that this NOIR was sent to the Petitioner's
former counsel. See Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568 (BIA 1988) and
Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987). The record also indicates
that the Director then issued the Petitioner another NOIR to the Petitioner's
former counsel on December 23, 2014, giving the Petitioner 30 days to
respond. However, the Director issued the decision revoking the approval
of the petition on December 25, 2014, to the Petitioner's current counsel
two days after the NOIR was resent to the Petitioner on December 23, 2014.
Therefore, the matter will be remanded to the Director to reissue a notice
of intent to revoke and allow the Petitioner and current counsel an
opportunity to respond.
Second, related to the question of successorship, the record does not fully
document the nature of the buyout and the restructuring that took place
relating to the Petitioner's parent company. USCIS has not issued
Page 15 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
regulations governing immigrant visa petitions filed by a successor-in-
interest employer. Instead, such matters are adjudicated in accordance with
Matter of Dial Auto Repair Shop, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 481 (Comm'r 1986)
("Matter of Dial Auto") a binding, legacy Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) decision that was designated as a precedent by the
Commissioner in 1986. Considering Matter of Dial Auto and the generally
accepted definition of successor-in-interest, a petitioner may establish a
valid successor relationship for immigration purposes if it satisfies three
conditions. · First, the petitioning successor must fully describe and
document the transaction transferring ownership of all, or a relevant part
of, the beneficiary's predecessor employer. Second, the petitioning
successor must demonstrate that the job opportunity is the same as
originally offered on the labor certification.
Third, the petitioning successor must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that it is eligible for the immigrant visa in all respects. The record
does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the details of the buyout
to demonstrate whether it resulted in either: (1) a change in the Petitioner's
name but not a change in the Petitioner's Employer Identification Number
(EIN); or (2) an organizational change and a change in EIN that would give
rise to a successorship, or multiple successor issues.
SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RELIGIOUS WORKER
SEP112015_01C1101.pdf
Matter of C-S-C-, ID# 13817 (AAO Sept. 11, 2015)
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION SUSTAINED
The Petitioner, a church, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a special
immigrant religious worker to perform services as a Mennonite school
Page 16 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
teacher at one of its private schools. See Immigration and Nationality Act
(the Act) § 203(b)(4), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(4). The Director, California
Service Center, denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner did not
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a religious occupation. ….
Section 203(b)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1153(b)(4), provides classification
to qualified special immigrant religious workers as described in section
101(a)(27)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(C), ….
We find that the record in this case, as a whole, supports [Petitioner’s]
contention that teaching in their religious school is an activity considered
by the church to constitute the practice of religion and that educating their
children is considered a sacred religious duty within the church.
Considering the curriculum and lesson plans submitted, in conjunction with
the church's prioritization of a private school for all of its children to the
extent that most of its congregations operate their own religious school that
are entirely staffed by church members, we conclude that the proffered
position involves duties primarily related to a traditional religious function
and involves carrying out the religious beliefs of the Mennonite religion.
Further, the record shows that being a Mennonite school teacher is
recognized as a religious occupation within the denomination. The duties
of the position primarily relate to, and clearly involve, inculcating or
carrying out the beliefs of the Mennonite religion. Accordingly, the
Petitioner has established that the proffered position is a religious
occupation as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(m)(5).
Page 17 of 17
LINK-FILENAME
CITATION
OUTCOME – EXCERPTS - COMMENTS
In sum, the Petitioner has demonstrated that the proffered position of
Mennonite school teacher qualifies as a religious occupation as defined in
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(m)(5). With respect to the Petitioner's assertion that USC
IS has been inconsistent in granting and denying petitions with the identical
proffered position, we note that each petition is considered on a case-by-
case basis and this decision should not be interpreted to be a blanket holding
that being a Mennonite school teacher is a religious occupation. In addition,
USCIS is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility
has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may
have been erroneous. See, e.g Matter ofChurch Scientology International,
19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm'r 1988).
This compilation is only accurate as of date and time of posting.