The Labor Department's regulation, 29 CFR Part 60, Schedule C, describes the qualification of a machinist with the parenthetical notation that four-year training is "generally necessary" for satisfactory work performance in this field. The regulation of the Labor Department, 29 CFR 60.5 provides that a certification which is issued under that Part is invalid if the representations upon which it is based are incorrect. The special inquiry officer concluded that in the course of an exclusion hearing he had the authority to determine whether the representation upon which the Labor Department's certificate was based was correct or was incorrect, and it was not necessary to refer to the Labor Department on this matter. He likened the case to that of a determination by a special inquiry officer during an exclusion or a deportation hearing, as to the materiality of a misrepresentation which was made to an American Consul in the application for an immigrant visa, and where the consul's statement as to whether he regards the misrepresentation as material is not controlling on the special inquiry officer.1 The applicant actually possessed three years and nine months' training and experience as a machinist. The Labor Department's regulation, 29 CFR Part 60, Schedule C, provides that four years' training is generally necessary to qualify an individual as a machinist. The Labor Department's suggestion that four years' training is generally necessary is only a guideline. The language used is not inflexible so that a lesser or greater period can be accepted. Substantial compliance with the requirement may be sufficient. The applicant actually has had a sufficient period of training to comply substantially with the definition for machinist and Schedule C of the Labor Department's regulations. The Labor certificate is not invalid under 29 CFR 60.5. We agree with the special inquiry officer that the applicant is not excludable under section 212 (a) (14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for lack of a valid Labor certification. As to the question of whether the applicant was excludable under section 212 (a) (19) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by reason of having obtained an immigrant visa by fraud or by willful misrepresentation of a material fact, the special inquiry officer by applying the tests for materiality set out in Matter of S — and B—C—, 9 I. & N. Dec. 436, found that the misrepresentation was not material. The Attorney General held in Matter of S- and B-C-, that a misrepresentation made in connection 1 Matter of M—, 4 I. & N. Dec. 532; Matter of M-, 7 I. & N. Dec. 222, 225; Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I. & N. Dec. 409, 410. with an application for a visa or other documents, or with entry into the United States, is material if either (1) the alien is excludable on the true facts, or (2) the misrepresentation tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded. The application of the test turns on the answers to three questions. First, does the record establish that the alien is excludable on the true facts? If it does, then the misrepresentation was material. Second, does the misrepresentation tend to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility? Third, if a relevant line of inquiry has been cut off, might that inquiry have resulted in a proper determination that the alien be excluded? The applicant is not excludable on the true facts, on the basis of his training as a machinist. Using the second step of the test, his misrepresentation did tend to shut off a line of inquiry relevant to his eligibility-the actual number of years of training he had. However, applying the third step of the test, the applicant would have been able to demonstrate that he had sufficient training as a machinist to qualify for a Labor certificate. The period of three years and nine months is sufficient compliance with the regulations of the Labor Department. The applicant is not excludable under section 212 (a) (19) of the Act. The trial attorney has filed a brief taking issue with the findings of the special inquiry officer. Breaking down the figures supplied by the applicant, the trial attorney concludes that the applicant has 83 per cent of training and experience generally considered necessary by the Department of Labor for a machinist. However, in view of the language of the regulation relating to a machinist, that four years' training is generally necessary, it is apparent from the language used that this requirement is simply a guideline and that the training of the applicant sufficiently and substantially complied with the regulations of the Labor Department. As to the other objection raised by the trial attorney, we believe the special inquiry officer correctly applied the standard set forth in Matter of S- and B-C-, 9 I. & N. Dec. 436. The appeal of the trial attorney will be dismissed. ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal of the trial attorney be dismissed and that the order of the special inquiry officer admitting the applicant as a special immigrant be and the same is hereby approved. MATTER OF HERNANDEZ-URIARTE In Exclusion Proceedings A-10735954 Decided by Board March 14, 1969 Appellant, who obtained an immigrant visa supported by a labor certification issued to him on the basis of false representations as to his full time employment as a machinist by two different companies when, in fact, he had worked only part-time for the companies in question and not for the periods represented, is excludable under section 212 (a) (14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, for lack of a valid labor certification (29 CFR 60.5), notwithstanding other evidence of record establishes he is a skilled machinist as claimed. EXCLUDABLE: Act of 1952-Section 212 (a) (14) [8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (14)]—No valid labor certification. ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT: Section 212 (a)(19) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (19)]— Luis A. Velarde, Jr., Esquire The case comes forward on appeal from the order of the special inquiry officer dated October 28, 1968 finding the appellant inadmissible solely under section 212 (a) (14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and ordering that he be excluded and deported from the United States. The appellant, a native and citizen of Mexico, 37 years old, male, married, arrived at the port of El Paso, Texas on April 18, 1968 and applied for admission as a special immigrant. He presented an unexpired immigrant visa which had been issued to him at the Unted States Consulate, Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico on March 19, 1968 and a valid Mexican passport. The face of the visa recites that a certification under section 212 (a) (14) of the Act was attached. The visa was issued upon appellant's execution under oath of an application for a visa before an American Consul at Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico on March 19, 1968. Among the documents attached to the application for the immigrant visa, and forming a part of said application, was an application for an alien employment certification, Form ES-575A, executed by the appellant on October 21, 1967. Endorsed on the front of this Form ES-575A is the certification for the appellant's employment as a machinist issued by an official of the Department of Labor on December 29, 1967 pursuant to section 212 (a) (14) of the Act. In his application for this certification the appellant stated that he was seeking work in this country as a machinist, and in Item 16 of the application under "Experience" he showed that he worked for Taller Faxa, Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico from June 12, 1953 until October 21, 1967 as a machinist. Also under the same heading he showed that he worked for the Tuberia de Acero in Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico from November 22, 1946 to June 10, 1953 as a machinist. SubImitted with the Form ES-575A were two letters which corroborated the experience with the respective employers for the periods stated on the Form ES-575A. There was also submitted to the American Consul as part of the application for the immigrant visa a Form ES-575B, a job offer by a prospective employer, the employer being the Menasco Manufacturing Company of Burbank, California. In a sworn statement made before an immigration officer on April 22, 1968 (Ex. 7), the appellant admitted that he had not worked at all for Taller Faxa and that he worked only on a parttime basis, or a piecemeal basis, for the Tuberia de Acero, and that he first began working for them around 1962. Concerning the two letters from the two employers which he presented with his Form ES-575A, the appellant in his sworn statement described them as being letters of recommendation. When he made the sworn statement to an immigration officer on April 22, 1968, the appellant presented two additional letters, from Papelera de Chihuahua and from Elaboradora de Metales, both of Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico, to corroborate that he worked for these two companies as a machinist. He stated further that these two letters had never been presented to the American Consulate nor had they been used to obtain the Labor certification. A sworn statement executed before an immigration officer on January 27, 1961 (Ex. 4) discloses that the appellant had been admitted for permanent residence on September 17, 1956 but that two weeks after his departure in 1958, he was involved in an automobile accident and that he had not worked until the time of making the statement on January 27, 1961. He was served with a notice that he was being detained for an exclusion hearing scheduled to be heard on January 30, 1961 (ex. 5) but did not appear for such hearing. In his latest sworn statement on April 22, 1968 the appellant repeated that he had not worked between March 1958 and January 1961. The appellant claims that he is a skilled machinist and that he has successfully demonstrated his ability to his prospective employer, the Menasco Manufactuing Company of Burbank, California which is seeking to employ him as a machinist. The appellant introduced into evidence a letter from a recruiting agent of the Menasco Manufacturing Company stating that he was qualified for work as a machinist for that company (Ex. 8), and corroboration of his claim of having proved his qualifications as a machinist to the satisfaction of the recruiting agent by a demonstration of his work as a machinist in a machine shop in Juarez, Mexico (Ex. 15, 16, 17 and 18). The appellant testified that he was furnished with a blueprint of an object in a machine shop in the test which was held in Juarez pursuant to the foregoing. At the hearing the appellant testified that he worked as a machinist in Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico with the Elaboradora de Metales from 1956 to 1960 and that he worked with that company full-time and he worked part-time for the Taller Faxa only when needed, either in the morning or in the evening after he had completed his regular daily employment with the Elaboradora de Metales. He testified he next worked for the Papelera de Chihuahua from 1961 until 1968 and that he worked on a parttime basis for the Tubos y Tanques de Acero of the same city on a part-time basis when there was work to do after he had finished his regular job with the Papelera de Chihuahua. However, the only two letters submitted with the Form ES-575A were from Taller Faxa and from Tubos y Tanques de Acero, his parttime employers. It is evident that the appellant is a machinist and that he has demonstrated his skill as a machinist to the satisfaction of his prospective employer, the Menasco Manufactuing Company of Burbank, California which wishes to employ him as a machinist. The regulations of the Department of Labor, 29 CFR 60.5, provide that certifications are invalid if the representations upon which they are based are incorrect. The representations made by the appellant on the basis of which the Labor certification was issued to him were that he worked for the Taller Faxa from June |