KRAUS PERIODICALS

11 I. & N. Dec. 63
CourtBoard of Immigration Appeals
DecidedJuly 1, 1964
Docket1434
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 11 I. & N. Dec. 63 (KRAUS PERIODICALS) 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
KRAUS PERIODICALS, 11 I. & N. Dec. 63 (bia 1964).

Opinion

Interim Decision 44434

MATTER OF KRAUS PERIODICALS, INC. In Visa Petition Proceedings NYC-N-16048

Decided by Regional Commissioner November SO, 1964 Petition, by a Jobber of periodicals of scientific and scholarly nature in various languages, to accord beneficiary classification under section 101(a) (15) (H) Immigration and Nationality' Act, as an industrial trainee for a six- month period during which he will receive a salary of $100 per week, is denied dace the petition fails to set forth a training program, the specific position, duties, or skills in which beneficiary is to be trained, and the substantial salary beneficiary will receive suggests that productive employ- zuent, which may displace a United States citizen, will be involved.

. This matter comes before the Regional Commissioner as an appeal from the decision of the District Director denying the petitioner's request for classification of the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant trainee under section 101(a) (15) (H) (iii) of the Immigration and National- ity Act. The petitioner, a jobber of • periodicals of scientific and scholarly nature in various languages, desires fn stertoril the benefici- ary training for a period of six months and .will pag him a salary of $100 per week plus time and one half for overtime. Section 214.2(h) (2) Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regula- tions, provides that such trainee status cannot be granted unless the required petition is accompanied by a statement describing the type of training to be given and the position or duties for which the bene- fi-ary is to be trained. It further provides that such trainee may not engage in productive employment if such employment will dis- place a United States resident. It is believed that this petition, even when supplemented by the brief submitted on appeal, fails to meet the requirement set forth above. No training program is set forth; the specific drills in which the beneficiary is to be trained are not described; the specific position or duties which the beneficiary will perform upon conclusion of the 63 Interim Decision #1484 program is not designated; and the substantial salary which he will receive suggests that productive employment, -which May displace a United States citizen, will be involved. It is concluded that the bene- ficiary is not properly classifiable as a nonimmigrant trainee and the appeal will therefore be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

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

Related

ST. PIERRE
18 I. & N. Dec. 308 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1982)
TREASURE CRAFT OF CALIFORNIA
14 I. & N. Dec. 190 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 I. & N. Dec. 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraus-periodicals-bia-1964.