SASANO

11 I. & N. Dec. 363

• Court: Board of Immigration Appeals
• Decided: July 1, 1965
• Docket: 1518
• Status: Published

Opinion

Interim Decision #1518

ILyrrau Or SASAN0 in Visa Petition Proceedings SFR-N-1593 Decided by Regional Commissioner October RR, 1965 Petition by the owner and operator of a fruit orchard to accord beneficiaiy nonimmigrant classification under section 101(a) (15) (a) ( 111), Immigration and Nationality Act, as an industrial trainee in American methods of agriculture applicable to fruit raising, is denied since the proposed training program for beneficiary, a graduate of an agricultural college in Japan with 32 years' subsequent experience specializing in crops similar to those of petitioner, would consist principally of practical, on-the-job training. In addition, since beneficiary would be employed at least 8 hours per day, 6 days per week the entire year, and daring a considerable portion of the year would-be petitioner's only employee, lb is concluded he would be in volved in full-time productive employment • and that any training received would be incidental thereta.

Discussion: This case is befoie the Regional Commissioner on appeal from the District Director's decision denying the petition on the following grounds: It has been established that you have 60 acres of land under cultivation, which includes 30 acres of pears, 20 acres of plums, and a combination of 10 acres of vegetables, peaches, persimmons and cherries, and that you employ only 5 to 6 workers hi the peak of the season. During a Considerable poition of the year, the trainee will be your only employee, and for that reason it is concluded that the beneficiary will displace a United States citizen or resident alien, who would ordinarily be required to do the work that the beneficiary will be engaged in. Further, you have failed to establish that there will be any training offered the beneficiary other than full-time on-the- job training. The petitioner is owner and operator of a 60 acre fruit orchard. Ike proposes to train the beneficiary in American methods of agri- culture as applied to fruit raising. He has submitted an Outline of the proposed training which covers orchard management, planting and cultivation, packaging and shipping, and harvesting. 11e esti- mates the period of training required as 86 months. 363 Interim Decision #1518 The beneficiary is a 52-year-old native and citizen of Japan pres- ently residing in Japan. Information has been submitted that he is a graduate of the Kagoshima ktiyanojo Agriculture State College and has subsequently been engaged in farming in Japan for 12 years. . ne has submitted an affidavit attesting to ownership of 5.5 acres of land and that 8 acres of that land are devoted, to orchards. When. interviewed by a, representative of this Service, the peti- tioner stated that all of the training offered would be by practical on-the-job training supplemented by unscheduled trips to the 'Uni- versity of California to attend lectures and by visits to county fairs. In his brief nn appeal, petitioner stresses his qualifications as a trainer and draws attention to the fact this Service previously ap- • provedhistnfagrcultinewhomads employ for a period of three years. The petitioner has established the beneficiary is a:graduate of an agricultural college in Japan and that he has subsequently had 12 years' experience as a farmer specializing in crops similar to those of petitioner. It is conceded that American agricultural methods may differ from those of Japan to 'some extent. It is obvious that a peach, pear, plirm, or citrus fruit grows much tha same in either locale. It is reasonable to assume that only the method of raising differs, and • the adoption of that method to the certain locale. This can be taught without resorting to the day today chores involved in culti- vation, pruning, spraying, and irrigation. The need to train a per- son who is a, graduate of an agricultural college and who has 12 years' subsequent experience as a farmer in such a manner is un- realistic. Petitioner has stated the beneficiary will be emiiloyed eight hours a day in the winter and ten hours a day in the summer six days a week at the wage of $1.25 per hour yet maintains no domestic labor will be replaced. No explanation concerning replacement of the productive labor-involved is given. Theeptire record, including representations made on appeal, has been carefUlly considered and it is concluded the beneficiary would be involved in full-time productive employment and that any train- ing received would be incidental thereto. The decision of the Dis- trict Director was proper, and no 'evidence has been submitted that would warrant disturbing that decision. The appeal will be dis: missed. ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

5 04