general term and includes various occupations such as accountant, advertising workers, industrial traffic manager, marketing research workers, personnel workers, and purchasing agents; thus, including both professional and nonprofessional activities. Careful review of the discussion of these occupations shows that while all are related to the world of business, each has its own emphasis on the academic training and experience required for qualification in that occupation. It is evident that while a person may have a degree in business administration, such degree may qualify him for some but not all of the occupations included in the broad field of business administration. For example, a person with a degree in business administration, major in accounting, would not qualify as a public relations man or personnel manager and vice versa. Therefore, a petitioner with a business administration degree must clearly establish a particular area and occupation in the field of business administration in which he is engaged or plans to be engaged and must also establish that he meets the special academic and experience requirements of that designated activity, as a prerequisite to a determination as to professional status. In the instant case the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to section 212(a) (14) of the Act, has issued a certification for "administrative specialities" under Schedule C, Group II, of 29 CFR 60 with the initial three digit code of 169. The supplement to the DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES lists 38 different occupations under this initial three digit code, occupations which range from six months to ten years in the SVP (specific vocational preparation) time required to acquire proficiency in a given occupation. This list of 38 occupations does not include business administration or business administrator or business manager. Certification has been issued, but the petition does not indicate that petitioner will be employed in any of the occupations in code 169 that are certified. Counsel cites Matter of Shin, 11 I. & N. Dec. 686. This case relates to a person who sought preference classification as an economist, had a master's degree in economics and was working on his doctorate. This decision in part stated: The mere acquisition of a degree or equivalent experience does not of itself qualify a person as a member of a profession. The knowledge acquired must also be of a nature that is a realistic prerequisite for entry into the particular field of endeavor. The decision points out that a degree in business administration alone is not enough to qualify the holder as a member of the professions unless the academic courses pursued and knowledge gained is a "realistic prerequisite" for the profession; so that if he seeks recognition as an accountant, his academic courses be predominantly in that area rather than in the general field of business administration. Counsel also cites Matter of Chu, 11 I. & N. Dec. 881. The headnote to that decision, which of course is not part of the decision, is misleading and may have caused some misunderstanding. It indicates that "business administration" is a profession. However, careful reading of the decision itself establishes that it is occupations in the field of business administration that may be professions. Our review of the record in this case shows that it relates to a person seeking recognition as an accountant who had a baccalaureate degree in business administration in the field of accounting, who was seeking work as an accountant, who was working for a firm which had stated, "Peter Chu has the college and accounting background we need," and was utilizing his accounting skills on his job described as follows: His background of a college degree and accounting fulfills the unique requirement we need to fill our sales positions. Their duty is to analyze systems in various offices and show how mechanized accounting assists customer to get more current information and a much more efficient operation. He must also install and train on these systems. The decision quotes a Department of Labor letter as follows: Mr. Chu's degree in Business Administration was given by an accredited United States college. Graduates of business administration courses may qualify for several occupations coded as professional in the second edition of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, e.g., Accountant, Auditor, Property-rehabilitation Clerk (in insurance), Dealer-Contact Man, Employment Manager, Personnel Manager, Salary and Wage Administrator, Field Representative, to name some. Business Administration graduates may qualify for a greater number of professional occupations defined in the third edition of the DOT. This letter points out that a business administration graduate may qualify for several professional occupations but not all professions in the general field of business. A person would have had to take courses, or gained knowledge (considered to be a realistic prerequisite), in a particular occupation or profession in the field of business administration and designated by him as the profession in which he seeks preference classification. In reference to the Department of Labor letter quoted above, the Regional Commissioner stated: "We agree with the Department of Labor that occupations in business administration for which a person qualifies by reason of high education are profes sional occupations." He did not say that a business administration degree qualified a person for all occupations in business. He referred to occupations in business administration, and limited those occupations to those for which the person qualified (by reason of high education) and are recognized as professional occupations. Considering all the factors as discussed above, we cannot find that it has been established that "business administration" is a profession, The record has failed to establish in what profession, if any, petitioner is either qualified for or intends to engage in. He has not established that he has been engaged in any profession. Occupations in which he has work experience-bookkeeper, bank teller, and electronic technician-are not professions. In the Matter of Brantigan, 11 I. & N. Dec. 493, it is held that the burden of proof to establish eligibility for a desired preference rests with the petitioner. That burden of proof has not been met. The case will therefore be remanded to the District Director to afford petitioner an opportunity to supplement his application with such evidence as he may desire to establish his claimed professional capacity, in conformance with the discussion herein. The District Director is authorized to consider such additional evidence as may be presented and make his decision anew. ORDER: It is ordered that the case be remanded to the District Director in line with the above. MATTER OF GUERRA In Bond Proceedings A-13460457 Decided by Board October 17, 1968 The Board of Immigration Appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a bond determination under 8 CFR 242.2 (b), where the alien is being held in custody after having failed to appear for deportation. ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Constantine N. Kangles, Esquire 69 West Washington Street This appeal takes issue with the actions of the District Director in issuing a warrant on August 8, 1968 for the arrest and detention of the alien and requiring the alien to be released under bond in the amount of $3,500. On June 24, 1968 the alien, native of Libya and citizen of Italy, was the subject of deportation proceedings brought under section 241 (a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The respondent requested the privilege of voluntary departure which was denied by the special inquiry officer on the finding that the respondent was not a person of good moral character. No appeal was taken from those findings. Upon the decision of the special inquiry officer finding that the respondent should be deported, the Immigration Service served upon the respondent notice on Form I-294 as to the country to which deportation had been directed and on August 2, 1968 the Service further notified the respondent of the departure arrangements made for his deportation. Failing to surrender himself for deportation, the instant warrant of deportation was issued and on September 23, 1968 the alien was brought into the custody of the Service. The attorney for the alien states that the requirement of a bond in the amount of $3,500 or the requirement of a bond for the release of said alien is unreasonable, inequitable and is excessive. Counsel for the alien further requested the alien's release on his recognizance and for other and further relief as the Board of Immigration Appeals may see fit to grant herein. We are called upon to decide whether we have jurisdiction to accept the appeal in the instant matter. Pursuant to 8 CFR 242.2 (b), a District Director ... "May exercise the authority ... to continue or detain an alien in, or release him from, custody, to determine whether an alien shall be released under bond, and the amount thereof if any ... The alien may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals from any such determination. The foregoing provisions concerning notice, reporting and appeal shall not apply when the Service notifies the alien that it is ready to execute the order of deportation and takes him into custody for that purpose." (Emphasis supplied.) The warrant of arrest and the subsequent confinement came after the alien had failed to appear for deportation and as a consequence we are prohibited from assuming jurisdiction in the instant matter. ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed. |