LING

13 I. & N. Dec. 35
CourtBoard of Immigration Appeals
DecidedJuly 1, 1968
Docket1913
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 13 I. & N. Dec. 35 (LING) 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
LING, 13 I. & N. Dec. 35 (bia 1968).

Opinion

Interim Decision *1913

MATTER OE LING

In Visa Petition Proceedings • A-10800904 Decided by Regional Commissioner October 28, 1968 Since "business administration" is a general term including both profes- sional and nonprofessional activities, a degree in business administration alone is insufficient to qualify the holder thereof as a member of the pro- fessions under section 101(a) (32) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, unless the academic courses pursued and knowledge gained is a realistic prerequisite to a particular occupation in the field of business administration in which he is engaged or plans to be engaged; hence, peti- tioner, who has a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration, is denied preference classification under section 203(a) (3), of the Act since he has failed to establish in what profession, if any, in the field of business administration he intends to engage or is qualified. ON BEHALF or PErrriorma: Wellington Y. Ewan, Esquire 1260 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 100 Los Angeles, California 90017

This case comes forward on appeal from the decision of the District Director, Los Angeles, who on August 12, 1968, denied the petition in that petitioner had failed to establish an intent to engage in a professional occupation. Oral argument was re- quested and granted. Counsel appeared for such argument as scheduled. Petitioner is a 38-year-old married male, a native and citizen of China who was admitted to the United States as a student on Oc- tober 20, 1956, and received extensions of stay in that status to June 1, 1963. The record shows the petitioner obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from a Los Angeles college on August 29, 1958, and that he was employed as a bookkeeper from 1958 to 1960, as a bank teller from 1962 to 1966, and has since April 25, 1966, been employed in Los Angeles as an electronic technician. The present petition was filed March 21, 1968, for preference 35 Interim Decision *1913 classification under section 203 (a) (3) of the Act as a member of the professions as "business administration." Form ES-575A, "Statement of Qualifications," indicates that petitioner is seeking work in the United States as a "business manager." Section 101 (a) (32) of the Act defines the term profession as follows: "The term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies or semi- naries." In the Matter of Asuncion, 11 I. & N. Dec. 660, it is stated: Examination of the occupations named in section 101 (a) (32) of the Act indicates the following characteristics common to all: (1) Recognition as a member of those nrofessions normally requires a successful completion of a specific course of education on the college or university level, culminating in the attainment of a specific type of degree or diploma; and (2) the attain- ment of such degree or diploma is usually the minimum requirement for entry into those occupations. In the Matter of Shin, 11 I. & N. Dec. 686, it is brought out that "profession" as defined by section 101 (a) (32) of the Immi- gration and Nationality Act, as amended, contemplates knowledge or learning—not merely skill—of an advance type in a given field gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study of at least baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor. The primary issue in his case is whether or not "business ad- ministration" or be it "business administrator" is a profession which falls within the definitions of professions which qualify for preference classification under section 203 (a) (3) of the Act. The DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES, Volume I, "Definition of Titles," published by the Department of Labor, names and defines 35,550 separate occupations but does not in- clude business administration, business administrator or business manager as an occupation or profession. Review of Volume II, "Occupational Classification" of the DICTIONARY OF OCCU- PATIONAL TITLES, and of the supplement to the DICTIONARY fails to identify business administration, business administrator or business manager as an occupation or profes- sion. "Business administration" is a broad field, a field which con- tains various occupations and/or professions, all of which are re- lated to the world of business but each requiring a different academic preparation and experience peculiar to its needs. The OCCUPATIONAL OUTLOOK HANDBOOK, also published by the Department of Labor, shows that business administration is a

36 Interim Decision * 1913 general term and includes various occupations such as account- ant, advertising workers, industrial traffic manager, marketing research workers, personnel workers, and purchasing agents; thus, including both professional and nonprofessional activities. Careful review of the discussion of these occupations shows that while all are related to the world of business, each has its own emphasis on the academic training and experience required for qualification in that occupation. It is evident that while a person may have a degree in, business administration, such degree may qualify him for some but not all of the occupations included in the broad field of business administration. For example, a person with a degree in business administration, major in accounting, would not qualify as a public relations man or personnel manager and vice versa. Therefore, a petitioner with a business adminis- tration degree must clearly establish a particular area and occu- pation in the field of business administration in which he is en- gaged or plans to be engaged and must also establish that he meets the special academic and experience requirements of that designated activity, as a prerequisite to a determination as to professional status. In the instant case the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to section 212 (a) (14) of the Act, has issued a certification for "administra- tive specialities" under Schedule C, Group II, of 29 CFR 60 with the initial three digit code of 169. The supplement to the DIC- TIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES lists 38 different occu- pations under this initial three digit code, occupations which range from six months to ten years in the SVP (specific voca- tional preparation) time required to acquire proficiency in a given occupation. This list of 38 occupations does not include business administration or business administrator or business manager. Certification has been issued, but the petition does not indicate that petitioner will be employed in any of the occupa- tions in code 169 that are certified. Counsel cites Matter of Shin, 11 I. & N. Dec. 686. This case re- lates to a person who sought preference classification as an econo- mist, had a master's degree in economics and was working on his doctorate. This decision in part stated : The mere acquisition of a degree or equivalent experience does not of itself qualify a person as a member of a. profession. The knowledge acquired must also be of a nature that is a realistic prerequisite for entry into the particu- lar field of endeavor. The decision points out that a degree in business administra- tion alone is not enough to qualify the holder as a member of the 37 Interim Decision #1913 professions unless the academic courses pursued and knowledge gained is a "realistic prerequisite" for the profession; so that if he seeks recognition as an accountant, his academic courses be predominantly in that area rather than in the general field of business administration. Counsel also cites Matter of Chu, 11 I. & N. Dec. 881. The headnote to that decision, which of course is not part of the deci- sion, is misleading and may have caused some misunderstanding.

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

Related

Shanti, Inc. v. Reno
36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minnesota, 1999)
SEA
19 I. & N. Dec. 817 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1988)
CARON INTERNATIONAL
19 I. & N. Dec. 791 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 I. & N. Dec. 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ling-bia-1968.