CHU

11 I. & N. Dec. 881
CourtBoard of Immigration Appeals
DecidedJuly 1, 1966
Docket1664
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 11 I. & N. Dec. 881 (CHU) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Immigration Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
CHU, 11 I. & N. Dec. 881 (bia 1966).

Opinion

Interim Decision # 1061

MATTER .0E Coin •

In Visa Petition Proceedings A-12076712 Decided by Regional Oonvorkeioner October 7, 1966

Beneficiary, who has obtained a baccalaureate degree in business administra- tion from an aeoroditod college, is a member of the profeadona within the meaning of section 101(a) (32) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by P.L. 89-236, and notwithstanding his current employment in a nonprofessional capacity as an office equipment salesman, be is eligible for preference classification under section 203(a) (3) of the Act, as amended, since he is just starting, and expects and intends to continue, in his business careen

Discussion: This case comes forward on appeal from the de- cision of the District Director, Los Angeles, who denied the petition on June 2, 1966, in that the beneficiary, who is employed as an office equipment salesman, is not engaged in a profession and, therefore, not eligible for classification under section 203(a) (3). Petition was filed February 9, 1966, by the beneficiary in his own behalf. On appeal beneficiary requested oral argument, which was granted with date for appearance set for October 6, 1066. Benefic- iary failed to appear as scheduled and not having requested Post- ponement or otherwise corresponding with the Service, the decision will be made on the record at hand. The beneficiary is a. 26-year-old single male, a native and citizen of China,.last a resident of Hong Kong. He was first admitted to the United.States at Honolulu, Hawaii, on September 10, 1960, as a student destined to California State Polytechnic College, Pomona, California; which he attended for two years, enrolled in the field of business administration. He then transferred to Loias College, Du- buque, Iowa, which he attended until his graduation with a bachelor of arts degree in business administration in May 1965. After the completion of the'academic school year ending in the spring of 1964, he had returned to Hong Kong to visit his parents and wag subse- quntly readmitted as a student at Honolulu on September 9, 1984, to complete his college work of Loras College.

881 Inteikim 'Decision #1664 Upon completion of cellege beneficiary came to Los Angeles, California, where he was first employed by the American National Insurance Company as an insurance agent from August 1965 to December 1965. He then began his present employment with Bur= roughs Corporation of El Monte, California, in the office equipment sales division as an office equipment salesman. Section 212(a) (14) of the Immigration. and Nationality Act pro- vides for the exclusion of certain aliens unless the Secretary of Labor has certified that there are not sufficient workers in the United States who are able, willing, qualified' and available and that the employ- ment of such aliens will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States in similar employment. That provision applies to preference immigrant aliens described in section 203(a) (3) of that Act. In support of his petition the beneficiary presented Form ES-575, "Statement of Qualifications," which had been reviewed by the De- partment of Labor and who on April 21, 1965, issued the appropriate . certification. That department also advised that the beneficiary appeared qualified for classification as a member of the professions by reason of his educational background. Section 203(a) (8) of the Act as amended provides that visas shall be made available "to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions, or who because of their exceptional ability in the sci- ences or the arts will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural interests or welfare of the United States." Section 101(a) (32) defines "profession" as follows: "The term `profession' shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secon- dary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." As indicated, the professions listed in section 101(a) (32) of the Act are not all inclusive and we may consider other occupations as falling within the meaning of the term "profession." Matter of Shin, In- terim Decision No. 1606, indicates that professions are vocations which "require specialized training that is normally attained through high education of a type for which a bachelor's degree can be ob- tained .. ." That decision also states that the knowledge acquired through such education (or equivalent training) must be of a "nature that is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor." Volume II of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles places those occupations related to. the field of business administration into the two digit code group 16; "Occupations in administrative specialize- 882 Interim Decision #1664 Lions" which are classed as professional.. The Department .of Labor in a. letter to this Service dated August 15, 1966, stated in part in regard to the present case: .; "Mr. Olin's degree in Business Administration was given by an accredited United States college. Graduates of business administration courses may qualify for several occupations coded as profeisional in the second edition of. the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, e.g., Accountant, Auditor, Property- Rehabilitation Clerk (in insurance), Dealer-Contact Man, Employment Mana- ger, Personnel Manager, Salary and Wage Administrator, Field Representative, to name some. Business Administration graduates may qualify for a greater numbei of professional occupations defined in the third edition of the DOT." We agree with the Department of Labor that occupations in busi- ness administration for which a person qualifies by reason of high education are professional occupations. If the beneficiary were unemployed and was seeking employment in an occupation in business administration, he would no doubt be found qualified for third preference classification. The District Director found that the beneficiary was employed as an office equipment salesman, which is found in Volume II in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles to be in the two dig' it, 2-, group code as a sales and service occupation and which is not classified as a profession. However, the beneficiary's - qualifying vocation is in business ad- ministration, which is a profession. The fact that he may not now be employed in a qualifying profession does not preclude him from being classified as a member of the professions, eligible for third preference. Matter of Stamatiades, Interim Decision No. 1591, states "the question before us therefore, is whether the alien's present em- ployment in a, nonprofessional occupation as a laboratory technician precludes approval of a petition to accord him third preference clas- sification as a member of the professions," and concludes is follows: "It is concluded therefore that an alien's current employment in the United States in a nonprofessional occupation does not preclude ap- proval of a petition to accord him third preference classification if he is determined to be a qualified member of the professions." This interim decision further states, "The Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, does not specify that a member of the professions must be coming to this country to engage immediately in the practice of his profession in order to qualify for third. preference status . . :" "In many instances and frequently because of factors over which the alien has no control such as licensing and other local restrictions, he may be forced to accept any available employment for, a period of time after arrival before entering into professional practice." On

883 Tntim Deiision #1664 March 18, 1965 the Secretary of LabOr testified' efore a subcommit- tee of the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding certain aspects of H.R.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

SHAH
17 I. & N. Dec. 244 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1977)
LING
13 I. & N. Dec. 35 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 I. & N. Dec. 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chu-bia-1966.