sustained EB-3 Case: Law

IdmtiQhg dab deleted to 
prevent ddy unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 66 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant petition for Alien Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional pursuant to section 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
I 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center, and is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. The petition will be 
approved. 
The petitioner is a law office. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a paralegal. 
As required by statute, a Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment Certification approved by the 
Department of Labor, accompanied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
that the beneficiary was qualified for the proffered position. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits additional evidence and a brief statement. 
Section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 11 53(b)(3)(A)(i), provides 
for the granting of preference classification to 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 issue to be discussed in this case is whether or not the petitioner established the beneficiary's qualifications 
for the proffered position. To be eligible for approval, a beneficiary must have the education and experience 
specified on the labor certification as of the petition's filing date, which is November 14, 1997'. See Matter of Wing 3 
Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977). With the petition, the petitioner submitted a Form ETA 
750B with information pertaining to the qualifications of the new beneficiary. On the Form ETA 750B, signed by 
the beneficiary on June 5, 2003, the beneficiary did not claim to have worked for the petitioner 
To determine whether a beneficiary is eligible for an employment based immigrant visa, Citizenship & Immigration 
Services (CIS) must examine whether the alien's credentials meet the requirements set forth in the labor certification. 
In evaluating the beneficiary's qualifications, CIS must look to the job offer portion of the labor certification to 
determine the required qualifications for the position. CIS 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, Mandany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, (D.C. Cir. 1983); K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 
F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1983); Stewart Infua-Red Commissary of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 
1981). 
In the instant case, the Application for Alien Employment Certification, Form ETA-750A, items 14 and 15, set forth 
the minimum education, training, and experience that an applicant must have for the position of paralegal. In the 
instant case, item 14 describes the requirements of the proffered position as follows: 
14. Education 
Grade School C 
High School C 
College Blank 
College Degree Required Blank 
Major Field of Study Blank 
' The instant petition is for a substituted beneficiary. An 1-140 petition for a substituted beneficiary retains the 
same priority date as the original ETA 750. Memo. from Luis G. Crocetti, Associate Commissioner, Immigration 
and Naturalization Service, to Regional Directors, et al., Immigration and Naturalization Service, Substitution of 
Labor Cert~fication Beneficiaries, at 3, http://ows.doleta.gov/dmstree/fm/fm96/fm296a.pdf (March 7, 1996). 
Page 3 
The applicant must also have two years of experience in the job offered which, according to Item 13 of the Form ETA 
750A, include researching law, investigating facts and preparing documents to assist lawyer, assisting in preparing 
cases, delivering subpoenas, and filing pleadings with a court clerk. Item 15 does not list any special requirements. 
The beneficiary set forth his credentials on Form ETA-750B and signed his name under a declaration that the 
contents of the form are true and correct under the penalty of perjury. On Part 15, eliciting information of the 
beneficiary's work experience, he represented that he worked for the following employers: 
a. 
 Unemployed from June 2002 to the date of signing the Form ETA 750B; 
b. 
 Philippine Ports Authority (Port District Office of Southern Mindanao) in Davao City, Philippines, as 
Government Corporate and Legal Counsel, from April 1999 through May 2002 for 40 hours per week; 
c. 
 Department of Trade and Industry (Regional Office XI) in Davao City, Philippines, as Legal Officer 111, 
from August 1998 through March 1999 for 40 hours Der week: 
d. A member firm of Price ~Aterhouse'coo~ers, U.S.A.) in Makati City, Philippines, 
as Tax, Corporate & Legal Consultant, from January 1998 through July 1998 for 40 hours per week; and 
e. 
 ~a~sa~sa~.~~~ ~nterprise in Davao City, ~hilip~ines, as chief Accountant & office;-in-charge, from 
January 1993 through December 1997 for 40 hours per week. 
The beneficiary's resume was also submitted with the initial petition that included an additional prior employment 
experience representation: 
f. 
 Lorilai Marketing Corporation in Davao City, Philippines, as Accounting Clerk & Full-Charge 
Bookkeeper, from May 1,1987 through December 3 1,1992. 
The beneficiary's resume also reflects that he attended law school from 1993 through 1997. 
 The record of 
proceeding also contains Form G-325, Biographic Information sheet, signed by the beneficiary on October 3, 2003 
above a penalty for knowingly and willfully falsifying or concealing a material fact. Under the beneficiary's 
represented employment history, the facts detailed largely conform to the facts delineated on the Form ETA 750B 
and the beneficiary's resume except that he stated that he was a paralegal for Joaquin Cunanan & Co. instead of a 
Tax, Corporate and Legal Consultant. He also explained on that form that he was studying to take the California 
state bar exam and that explained his period of unemployment commencing in June 2002. 
With the initial petition, the petitioner submitted a letter on Philippine Ports Authority letterhead, signed by the Port 
District Manager, corroborating the beneficiary's employment experience as Chief Government Corporate & Legal 
Counsel (Legal Affairs Division Manager) from April 1, 1999 to the date the letter was issued, which was December 
10, 200 1. That letter contained a description of duties that included legal research and provision of legal services to 
the employer. The petitioner also submitted certificates illustrating the beneficiary's attendance at andlor completion 
of various training courses. Certificates from the University of the Philippines's Institute of Judicial Administration 
and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Davao City Chapter certified the beneficiary's attendance at their General 
Law Practice Institute in October 1999 and December 2000 (16 hours); a credential evaluation describing the 
beneficiary's educational achievements; a copy of the beneficiary's membership with the Supreme Court of the 
Philippines's Bar in May 1998; a copy of the beneficiary's license to be a certified public account issued by the 
Board of Accountancy in Philippines in 1997; and transcripts and diplomas of the beneficiary's completion of a 
bachelor's degree in commerce in 1992 and a law degree at Davao University in 1997. 
Page 4 
On January 8, 2004, the director issued a request for additional evidence. The director requested a letter 
corroborating the beneficiary's qualifying employment experience that conformed to the regulatory 
requirements delineated at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(1)(3). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted another letter from Philippine Ports 
Authority, signed by the Port District Manager, corroborating the beneficiary's employment experience as Chief 
Government Corporate & Legal Counsel (Legal Affairs Division Manager) from April 1999 to May 2002 for 40 
hours per week and provided a different description of duties from the first letter including the items summarized 
above and adding litigation experience. The petitioner also submitted a letter on Department of Trade & Industry 
(dti) letterhead that certified the beneficiary's employment as an Attorney I11 from August 1998 to March 1999 for 
40 hours per week, provided a detailed description of duties including litigation and arbitration experience, the 
investigation of facts and law, and delivery of subpoenas, and was signed by the regional director. The petitioner 
also submitted a letter corroborating the beneficiary's experience as a Chief Accountant & Officer-in-Charge for 
Magsaysay TBA Enterprise from January 2, 1993 through December 3 1, 1997 with a description of duties and 
signature by the officer manager. The petitioner submitted a certification from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines 
Davao City Chapter verifying that the beneficiary is a member and in good standing as of January 2, 2003. The 
petitioner resubmitted previously submitted evidence as well. 
After issuing an additional request for evidence not pertaining to the beneficiary's qualifications, the director 
denied the petition on October 5, 2004, stating that the evidence in the record of proceeding was insufficient to 
establish that the beneficiary was qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position because the beneficiary 
worked as an accountant from January 1, 1993 to December 3 1, 1997 and as an accounting clerk from May 1, 
1987 to December 3 1, 1992. 
On appeal, counsel states that the beneficiary performed "more than two (2) years of experience from April 1994 to 
January 1997 working as a Legal Assistantkegal Aid in the legal aid ofice for indigent clients of the Integrated Bar 
of the Philippines [(IBP)], Davao City Chapter" in order to meet requirements of the IBP's legal aid program and the 
Philippine Supreme Court's Law Student Practice Rule. Counsel states that a new employment verification certificate 
was "inadvertently and fortuitously" omitted from submission in response to the director's request for evidence. The 
petitioner submits a certification from IBP dated January 23, 2004 stating that the beneficiary "rendered legal 
assistance/legal aid services for at least 40 hours flexi-time every week in the legal aid office for indigent clients of 
[IBP] from April 1994 to January 1997, in meeting the requirements of the IBP Legal Aid Program and as required in 
the Philippine Supreme Court's Law Student Practice Rule." The letter provided a description of the beneficiary's 
duties which included researching and analyzing law, investigating facts and law of cases, preparing legal documents, 
mediation aid, and assisting lawyers with visits and interviews to detainees and preparation of litigation documents. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(1)(3) provides: 
(ii) Other documentation- 
(A) General. 
 Any requirements of training or experience for skilled workers, 
professionals, or other workers must be supported by letters from trainers or employers 
giving the name, address, and title of the trainer or employer, and a description of the 
training received or the experience of the alien. 
(B) Skilled workers. 
 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. 
The AAO overturns the director's decision. A review of IBP's website at http://www.ibp.org.ph/ reflects the 
beneficiary's membership as well as the membership of individuals who signed the letters for IBP. IBP's legal aid 
program is detailed on the website although it does not specifically mention volunteerism of law students or 
coordination with law schools. The beneficiary represented that he was Chief Accountant & Officer-in-Charge for 
Magsaysay TBA Enterprise in Davao City, Philippines from January 1993 through December 1997 for 40 hours per 
week while he worked 40 hours per week for IBP7s legal aid program and attended law school full-time during the 
same time period. The beneficiary's transcript from Davao University's law degree program reflects one practicum 
in the final semester but other courses that might include volunteerism with a local legal aid office. Such omission is 
not conclusive since it has not been represented that the beneficiary's legal aid work had to do with completion of his 
law school program. The beneficiary did not represent that he became a member of IBP until 1998 on his resume 
but that does not mean that he could not undertake volunteer work as a legal aid for their legal aid program prior to 
his actual membership date. Certificates of attendance and completion of various courses through IBP were not 
issued until 1999 and 2000 but none of them involve legal aid work. 
Without derogatory information to the contrary, the AAO concludes that the preponderance of evidence weighs in 
favor of determining that it is more likely than not that the beneficiary worked full-time, studied full-time, and 
volunteered full-time from 1993 through 1997, considering the nature of the attorney profession. Additionally, the 
AAO notes that the beneficiary's employment verification letters from Philippine Ports Authority and dti largely 
corroborate that the beneficiary had at least two years of experience performing duties similar to, if not even more 
advanced and superior to, the duties of the proffered position, however, they post-date the priority date. Finally, the 
AAO notes that under the definition of "skilled worker" set forth at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(1)(2), "[rlelevant post- 
secondary education may be considered as training." Thus, the beneficiary's law school training is considered 
relevant post-secondary education towards qualifying to perform the duties of paralegal as they are described on the 
Form ETA 750A. Therefore, the AAO finds that the petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position of paralegal as those requirements are delineated on the Form ETA 
750A. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. 
The petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. The petition is approved.