dismissed EB-3 Case: Electrical Contracting

MATTER OF 1-C-E-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 21,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an electrical contractor, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a low voltage system 
installer. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(3)(A)(i). This 
employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a foreign national for 
lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that requires at least 2 years of training or 
expenence. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that because the position 
offered does not require a minimum of at least 2 years of experience, the labor certification does not 
support the immigrant classification of a skilled worker. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence, 
asserting that the position does qualify as a skilled worker position. 
Upon de Qovo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
A. Overview of the Employment-Based Immigrant Petition Process 
A United States employer may sponsor a foreign national for lawful petmanent residence, which is a 
three-part process. First, the employer must obtain an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent 
Employment Certification (labor certification), from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) for 
certification that "there are not sufficient [U.S.] workers who are able, willing, qualified, and 
available" to perform the position offered where the beneficiary will be employed, and that the 
employment of the beneficiary will not "adversely affect the wages and working conditions of 
workers in the United States similarly employed." Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act. The date the 
labor certification is accepted for processing by the DOD establishes the priority date, which 
determines when a visa is available for the beneficiary to adjust to lawful permanent status. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
Matter of 1-C-E-, Inc. 
Second, the employer files a Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, with the approved 
labor certification, to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). To demonstrate 
eligibility, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the requirements of the otl~red 
position certified by the DOL and that the beneficiary qualities for the requested classification. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that the proffered position supports the requested classification and 
that it is otherwise eligible for the requested classification, including establishing its ability to pay 
the proffered wage. 
Third, if USCIS approves the Form I -140 and a visa is available based upon the priority date, the 
beneficiary may apply for an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, adjustment of status in the United 
States. 
B. Skilled Worker Classification 
Section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i), defines "skilled workers" as "qualified 
immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of 
performing skilled labor (requiring at least two years training or experience), not of a temporary nature, 
for which qualified workers are not available in the United States." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B) states the following: 
If the petition is for a skilled worker, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that 
the alien meets the educational, training or experience, and any other requirements of the 
individual labor certification, meets the requirements for Schedule A designation, or 
meets the requirements for the Labor Market Information Pilot Program occupation 
designation. The minimum requirements for this classification are at least two years of 
training or experience. 
II. ANALYSIS 
At issue on appeal is whether the ofiered position described on the labor certification supports the 
skilled worker classification. The labor certification states that the offered position has the following 
minimum requirements: 
H.4. Education: Other. 
H.4-A. If Other is indicated in question 4, specify the education required: "Vocational HS." 
H.4-B. Major field of study: "Electro- Technic or any related field." 
H.5. Training: None required. 
H.6. Experience in the job offered: None required. 
H.7. Alternate field of study: None accepted. 
H.8. Is there an alternate combination of education and experience that is acceptable: Yes. 
H.8-A. If Yes, specify the alternate level of education required: None. 
H.8-C. If applicable, indicate the number of years experience acceptable in question 8: 2. 
2 
Matter of 1-C-E-, Inc. 
H.9. Foreign educational equivalent: Accepted. 
H. 10. Experience in an alternate occupation: None accepted. 
H.14. Specific skills or other requirements: Left blank. 
As indicated above, Part H.4 of the labor certification states that the Beneficiary must have 
completed vocational high school with a major field of study in electro-technic or any related field. 
Part H.8 states that 2 years of related experience is acceptable as an "alternate combination of 
education and experience." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) states that a skilled worker position is one "requiring at least 
two years training or experience." At issue is whether the requirement to complete vocational high 
school with a major field of study in electro-technic or any related field constitutes a requirement of 
at least 2 years of training or experience in order to demonstrate that the minimum terms of the labor 
certification support skilled worker classification. We note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(2) states, "Relevant post-secondary education may be considered as training for the 
purposes of this provision." The regulations do not allow secondary education to likewise be 
considered training as a matter of practice. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the vocational nature of the required secondary education 
should be considered as training. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that completion of secondary 
school of a vocational nature would include 2 years of "training." In support of its claims, the 
Petitioner cites the Job Zone descriptions op O*NET, which is the current occupational classification 
system used by DOL.
1 
O*NET incorporates the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 
system, which is designed to cover all occupations in the United States. See Standard Occupational 
Classification, http://W\Vw.bls.gov/soc/socguide.htm. The record reflects that DOL classified the 
offered position as a Job Zone Three occupation. The Petitioner submits an O*NET Online 
overview of the Job Zones which states under Job Zone Three, "Employees in these occupations 
usually need one or two years of training involving both on-the-job experience and informal training 
with experienced workers." First, \Ve note that this statement allows for less than 2 years of 
experience for Job Zone Three occupations, which does not establish the Petitioner's claim that the 
type of position offered requires a minimum of 2 years of training or experience. Second, O*NET 
states general requirements for positions that are classified \vithin a particular Job Zone, but the 
question before us is whether the specific terms of the labor certification allow for less than 2 years 
of training or experience. 
The Petitioner further asserts that a review of the Beneficiary's education would establish that the 
Beneficiary has at least 2 years of training gained through his completion of a vocational secondary 
school. However, the issue is not whether the Beneficiary has 2 years of training, but rather whether 
the position, as described on the labor certification, requires at least 2 years of training or experience. 
1 
Located online at http://online.onetcenter.org, O*NET is described as "the nation's pi-imary source of occupational 
information, providing comprehensive information on key attributes and characteristics of workers and occupations." 
3 
Matter of 1-C-E-, Inc. 
Finally, the Petitioner also cites Hoosier Care, Inc. v. Cherto.fJ; 482 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2007), for the 
pteinise that "it is the employer, under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)( 4) who sets the requirements as validated 
by the DOL's certification." However, Hoosier Care stands for the limited interpretation of what 
constitutes "relevant" post-secondary education and whether it may be considered training under the 
skilled worker regulation. Here we are not considering the relevance of post-secondary education 
such that it may be considered training and therefore, the Petitioner's reliance on this case is 
misplaced. We further emphasize that it is up to USCIS to determine whether the offered position 
qualifies for the requested preference classification. See Madany v. Smith, 696 F .2d 1008, 1 012-1013 
(D.C. Cir. 1983); see also KR.K Irvine. Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1983); 
Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman. 736 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984). 
It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate the labor cetiification requires a minimum of 2 years of 
training or experience. Here, the Petitioner has not provided evidence to substantiate its claims. 
While vocational high school may consist of 2 years of vocational training, the Petitioner has not 
established that completion of vocational high school would necessarily require the completion of 
2 years of training, as training is defined under pertinent regulations. In other words, it is not 
sufficient that the labor certification state requirements that might, under certain circumstances, fit 
the skilled worker definition. The terms of the labor certification must clearly require at least 2 years 
of training or experience. Here, by allowing an individual to qualify for the proffered position with 
only completion of vocational secondary school, which may not include at least 2 years of training, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the position offered requires 2 years of training or 
expenence. Thus, the labor certification does not support the requested classification of skilled 
worker. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In summary, we conclude that the terms of the labor certification do not support classification as a 
skilled worker. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for 
the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the Petitioner has 
not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of I-C-E-. Inc., ID# 122801 (AAO Feb. 21, 2017) 
4