dismissed EB-2 Case: Nursing

(b)(6)
. ' 
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
APR 3 0 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
· U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service! 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services '· 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A) 
' 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision. of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Plt~ase be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
);t!i~ ,__, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals 
Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based ·immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification for the beneficiary as an "alien of exceptional ability," as a nurse, 
pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(A): The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary qualifies for blanket labor 
certification pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 656.5, Schedule A, Group I. 
The director found that the beneficiary does not have "a degree of expertise above that encountered 
by her peers in the field." The director also found that "the application for labor certification does 
not establish [thit] the profe_rred position requires an alien of exceptional ability, or a professional 
holding an advanced degree, and does not support the requested second preference classification." 
Finally, the director found that the petitioner did not provide a prevailing wage determination. 
Therefore, "the petition [wa]s not accompanied by a proper application for labor certification." 
On appeal, counsel submits a 
brief and additional evidence. The AAO notes that the filing date of the 
original petition was August 20, 2008. Therefore, evidence submitted in response to the director's 
request for evidence and on appeal which reference events that occurred after the date of filing may not 
be considered here. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved 
at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligibleunder a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 
22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 
18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), that USC IS cannot "consider facts that come into being only· 
subsequent to the filing of a petition." /d. at 176 .. 
On appeal, counsel cites to the decisions Matter of Pan Am, 7 I&N Dec. 634 (Reg'l Comm'r 1957) 
and Matter ofG-F-S, 7 I&N Dec. 37 (Reg'l Comm'r 1955). Based on the time period for the cases 
cited, the preference categories and immigration framework were different. Both decisions were 
based upon section 203(a)(1)(A) of· the Act in effect in 1952 which stated: "to qualified quota 
immigrants whose services are determined by the Attorney General to be needed urgently in the 
United States because of the high education, ·technical training, specialized experience, or 
exceptional ability of such immigrants and to be substantially beneficial prospectively to the national 
economy, cultural interests, or welfare of the United States." The Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT 90) created five categories _under the amended 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b), four of which were 
employment based, and the fifth related to employment creation. Furthermore, although counsel 
asserts that these decisions indicate that there is no "requirement" that an individual of exceptional 
ability needs to have "'a degree of expertise above that encountered by her peers in the field'" and 
that it "is one that is made up by the Service," the AAO is bound by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). See Arctic ICe Cream Novelties, LP. v. Reno, 134 F.3d 376 (1998) (deferring to the 
current regulatory definition of exceptional ability). 
-' 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. The AAO's de novo authority is well 
recognized by the federal courts. $ee Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 'For the 
reasons discussed below, upon review of the entire record, the AAO upholds the director's conclusion 
that the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) states in pertinent part that: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or 
Aliens of Exceptional Ability.--
(A) In General. -- Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
s11bstantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational 
interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, 
. arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines ."exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets 
forth the following six criteria, at least three of which a'n alien must meet in order to qualify as an 
alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, ·the arts, or business: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has. a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of 
learning relating to the area of exceptional-ability 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he 
or she is being sought · 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or . . . 
occupation 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other 
remuneration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations 
. ' 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations 
(b)(6)
I 
Page 4 
Where the petitioner fails to submit the requiSite evidence, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. See Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). If the petitioner has submitted· the requisite 
evidence, users makes a final merits determination as to whether the evidence demonstrates "a 
degree of expertise significantly above .that ordinarily encountered." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Only aliens whose achiev~ments have garnered "a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" are eligible for classification as aliens of 
exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R.. § 204.5(k)(2); see also Kazarian; 596 F.3d at 119-22. 
I 
While involving a different classification than the one at issue in this matter, the similarity of the two 
classifications makes the court's r~asoning in Kazarian persuasive to the classification sought in this 
matter. Specifically, the regulations state a regulatory standard and provide a list of suggested types 
of evidence, of which the petitioner must submit a certain number. Significantly, USCIS may not 
unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1221, citing Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th 
Cir.2008). Thus, if the regulatory standard is to have any meaning, USCIS must be able to evaluate 
the quality of the evidence in a final merits determination. 
·The Kazarian court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the 
regulations. Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court .stated 
that "the proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," arid if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to 
satisfy the regulatory requirement ofthree types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." '/d. at 1122 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). · 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the ·evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence on behalf of the beneficiary under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar 
award from a college, university, school; or other institution. of learning relating to the area of 
exceptional ability 
1 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory ·categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
The petitioner submitted the beneficiary's ·official academic record showing that the beneficiary 
received a diploma in Nursing from · • 
The beneficiary's diploma is qualifying evidence that meets t~e plain language requirements set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
A license to practice the_profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation 
The petitioner submitted a copy ofthe beneficiary's nursing license from the state of California. ' 
The beneficiary's nursing license is qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. § ·204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
Evidence of membership in professional associations 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) requires evidence of membership in 
professional "associations" in the plural. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), 
(C) and (D) only require one academic record, a: single license and a single high salary. When a 
regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of''letter(s)." Thus, the 
· AAO cari infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, 
federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is 
used in a regulation. 2 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's 
card from. the American Heart A.ssodation and copies of paystubs, which indicate payment of 
"CNA" dues. 
Regarding the ~ard from the American Heart Association, the "card certifies that the ... [beneficiary] 
. has successful1y completed the national cognitive and skills evaluations in accordance with the 
curriculum of the America 'n Heart Association for the Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support 
Program." No evidence was provided to indicate that the card was issued to a "member" of ·a 
professional association~ rather than an individual who completed a specific training. Furthermore, 
the issue date of the card is November 14, 2009. As previously discussed, eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing~ 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49. 
2 . . . 
See Maramjaya v. USC/S, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an i~terpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a'' bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires· a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's paystubs indicating "CNA Dues" of $34.21 per 
pay period. Counsel states that the dues are for the California Nurse Association. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Marter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laweano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Furthermore, given that counsel stated in the original petition that the 
beneficiary "is strictly prohibited [from] employment in the U[nitecl] S[tates] given her status as [a] 
TD," the AAO can only conclude that the beneficiary did not begin paying such dues until after the 
filing date of the petition. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel also asserted that the beneficiary's license 
from the California Board of Registered Nursing isevidence under this criterion. The beneficiary's 
license has already been addressed under 8 C.F.R. · § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). The AAO will not presume 
that evidence relating to or even meeting the license criterion is presumptive evidence that the 
beneficiary also meets · this criterion. To hold otherwise would r~nder meaningless the regulatory 
requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Therefore, the beneficiary's license 
will not be considered under this criterion, as the license criterion has already been addressed above. 
Finally, as defined at section 101(a)(32) of the act; profession "shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary. schools, 
colleges, academies, or seminaries." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2), in pertinent part, defines 
"profession" as follows: 
[O]ne of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is 
the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
The record does not establish that a baccalaureate is the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation as a nurse. As such the petitioner has not established membership in a "professional" 
association as mandated under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
· language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
Finally, section 203(b)(2)(c) of the Act expressly states that "possession of a []diploma ... or a license to 
practice ... shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of such exceptional ability." 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 that . the beneficiary has a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinary· encountered.) 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see 
. also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While .the AAO concludes .that the evidence is not indicative of 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
such expertise, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination. 3 Rather, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the anteCedent regulatory requirement of 
three types of evidence. /d. at 1122. · 
Therefore, the documentation submitted has n·ot shown that the ~eneficiary has a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered and the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary is 
qualified for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. On 
that basis alone the petition cannot be approved. 
II. SCHEDULE A GROUP I DESIGNATION 
A. The Offered Position 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4) provides the following information regarding labor certification 
and Schedule A designation for classification as aliens who are members of the professions holding 
advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability: · 
(i) General. Every petition under this classification must be accompanied by an 
individual labor certification from the Departmentof Labor, by an application for 
Schedule A designation (if applicable), or by documentation to establish that the alien 
qualifies for one of the shortage occupations in the De.partment of Labor's Labor 
Market Information Pilot Program. To apply for Schedule A designation or to 
establish that the alien's occupation is within the Labor Marke.t Information 'Program, 
a fully executed uncertified Form ETA-750 in duplicate must accompany the petition. 
The job offer portion of the individual labor certification, Schedule A application, or 
Pilot Program application must demonstrate that the job requires a professional 
holding an advanced degree or the equivalent or an alien of exceptional ability. 
(Emphasis added.) As required by statute, a certified ETA Foim 9089, Application for Permanent 
Em,ployment Certification, in duplicate accompanied the petition. The job offer portion of the labor 
certification in this matter indicates that the proffered position requires an associate's degree in 
Registered Nursing and 6 months of experience in the job offered. Item 14 of the ETA Form 9089 
provides only that "[c]ompletion of an accredited RN program, AS/ADN degr.ee, Bachelor's Degree 
(in Nursing) preferred. Current CA RN License and BLS provider card ACLS/P ALS/NRP if 
required by Nursing Department." 
', 3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d.at 145. In 
any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdictic::>n to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 {effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matterof 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). 
(b)(6)Page 8 
. J 
The director discussed the deficiencies in the job offer portion of the labor certification and found that 
"the application for labor certification does not establish the proffered position requires an alien of 
exceptional ability, or a professional holding an advanced degree, and does not support the requested 
second preference classification." Contrary to counsel's assertions, the labor certification filed in 
support of a Schedule A application for classification as an alien of exceptional ability must still comply 
~ith the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4), a regulation counsel does not address. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may not ignore a term of the labor certification, 
nor may it impose additional requirements. See Matter of Silver Dragon Chinese Restaurant, ·19 
I&N Dec. 401, 406 (Comm. 1986). See also, Madany, 696 F.2d at 1008; K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 
F.2d at 1006; Stewart Infra-Red Commissary of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1 (1st' Cir. 
1981). USCIS must examine "the language of the labor certification job requirements" in order to 
determine what the job requires. See generally Madany, 696 F.2d at 1015. The only rational 
manner by which USCIS can be. expected to interpret the meaning of terms used to describe the 
requirem~nts of a job in a labor certification is to "examine the certified job offer exactly as it is 
completed by the prospective employer." Rosedale Linden Park Company v. Smith, 595 F. Supp .. 
829, 833 (D.D.C. 1984)(emphasis added). USCIS's interpretation of the job's requirements," as 
stated on the labor certification must involve "reading and applying the plain language of the [labor 
certification application form]." /d. at 834 (emphasis added). 
~, 
As the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the job requires an alien of exceptional ability in the job 
offer portion of the labor certification as set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)( 4), the petition cannot be 
approved. 
. . 
Beyol)d the decision of the director, the AAO also finds that the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary meets the minimum requirements set forth in the Form ETA-9089. As stated above, 
the minimum education requirement is an associate's degree in Registered Nursing or its foreign 
equivalent. The record contains a copy of a "Diploma" from 
in Canada. The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.15(e) provides in pertinent part 
that "[a]n Immigration Officer. .. determines whether or not the alien is qualified for the Schedule A 
occupation." As the record does not contain evidence that the beneficiary's "Diploma" is the foreign 
equivalent of an associate's degree; the petition Cani1.ot be approved. 
B. Prevailing Wage Determination and Notice of Filing 
The regulation at 2o C.F.R. § 656.15 provides, in pertinent part: 
(a) Filing application. An employer ,must apply for a labor certification for a Schedule A 
occupation by filing an application 'with the appropriate DHS office, and not with an ETA 
application processing center. 
(b) General documentation requirements. A Schedule A application must include: 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
(1) An Application for Permanent Employment Certification form, which includes a 
prevailing wage determination in accordance with § 656.40 and § 656.41. 
(2) Evidence that notice of. filing the Application for Permanent Employment 
Certification was provided to the bargaining representative or the employer's 
employees as prescribed in § 656.10( d). · · 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.40 (2008) provides in relevant part: 
(a) Application- process. The employer must request a prevailing wage 
determination from the SW A having jurisdiction over the proposed 
. area of intended employment. The SW A must enter its . wage 
determination on the form it uses and return the form with its 
endorsement to the employer .... 4 
(b) Determinations.· The SW A determines the prevailing wage as follows: 
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, if 
the job opportunity is covered by a collective bargaining 
agreement (CBA) that was negotiated at arq~s-length between 
the uniori and the employer, the wage rate set forth in the CBA 
agreement is considered as not adversely affecting the wages 
of U.S. workers similarly employed, that is, it is considered the 
"prevailing wage" for labor certification purposes. 
The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.10(d)(1) states that riotice of the filing must be provided: 
(i) To the bargaining representative(s) (if any) of the empl,oyer's employees in the 
occupational classification for which certification of the job opportunity is sought in 
the employer's location(s) in the area of intended employment. Documentation may 
consist of a copy of the letter and a copy of the Application for Permanent 
Employment Certific~tion form that was sent to the bargaining representative. 
(ii) If there is no such bargaining representative, by posted notice to the employer's 
employees at the facility or location of the employment. The notice must be posted 
for at least 10 consecutive business days. The notice must be clearly visible and 
unobstructed while posted and must be posted in conspicuous places where the 
employer's U.S. workers can readily read the posted notice on their way to or from 
their place of employment ... In addition, the employer must publish the notice in 
any and all in-house media, whether electronic or printed, in accordance with the 
.-4 The regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.40 now provides that on or after. January 1, 2010 employers must request a prevailing 
wage determination from the National Processing Center. 
(b)(6)
I ' ' e 
Page 10 
normal procedures used for the recruitment of similar positions in lhe employer's 
organization. 
At stated by the director in his denial, the petitioner, both in resp~nse to the director's request for 
evipence and with the original petition, ''submit[ted] a printout from the Foreign Labor Certification 
Data Center's Online Wage Library showing various rates of pay for registered nurses" in the area of 
employment. The record does not contain a prevailing wage determination · from the · SW A as 
required by regulation, and as requeSted by the director in his request for evidence. For the first time 
on appeal, counsel asserts that because "the wage rate set forth in the CBA will be considered the 
prevailing wage[,] ... a separate prevailing wage determination will only be redundant and serve no 
useful purpose in the case." While counsel is correct in that, according to 20 C.F.R. § 656.40(b)(1), 
the "wage rate set forth in the CBA agreement.. .is considered the 'prevailing wage' for labor 
certification purposes," the petitioner must still comply· with the regulation at 20 C.F.R. 
§ 656.15(b)(l). The AAO notes that on the Form ETA 9089, the petitioner indicated that the 
prevailing wage information was based upon the "US-DOL Online Wage Library," not on a CBA, 
and responded "N/ A" regarding notification to the bargaining representative. Furthermore, the 
petitioner submitted a posting notice with the original petition, not evidence of notification to the 
bargaining representative. 
The methods vary by which a petitioner can pe notified of evidentiary requirements. For example, a 
petitioner is considered to be on notice . through the specific requirements outlined. within the· 
regulations, or through various forms of communication from USCIS to a petitioner or applicant 
noting an evidentiary deficiency or requesting more evidence. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 
764, 766 (BIA 1988). The regulations at 20 C,F.R. §§ 656.15(b)(1) and 656.40(b)(1) notified the 
petitioner of the specific requirements regarding the prevailing wage determination~ In addition, the 
director issued a request for evidence. In instances when the petitioner was notified of the evidence 
required to demonstrate eligibility and was afforded the opportunity to ·provide the evidence prior to 
the issuance of an adverse decision, new eligibility claims will not be considered on appeal. /d. 
Furthermore, as the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary is covered under a CBA, the 
AAO finds that the petitioner did not conform with the notice of filing required by the regulation at 
20 C.F.R. § 656.10(d)(l)(i). As the record does not contain eviden~e that the bargaining 
representative was notified of the filing, the petition cannot be approved . . 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each ~onsidered as ap independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of' proving eligibility for the 
benefit soughtremains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. ,