of students in recognized courses and confers upon its graduates a recognized degree or its credits are recognized by and transferable to an institution which does confer such a degree. In reaching a decision, the Service is required by section 101(a) (15) (F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to consult with the Office of Education of the United States. In this case, the Office of Education, after reviewing the information submitted with the petition and the information obtained through Service inquiry, has recommended that the petition not be approved.

We have carefully examined the record in this case including the information submitted in support of the appeal. As pointed out by the District Director in his decision, the record contains no evidence of the reputation of the college as an educational institution in the community, and the library and recreational facilities do not appear to be adequate for an institution of this type. Additionally, no evidence has been submitted that the credits earned by students at the institution would be recognized or transferable to other schools. Further, the material submitted in support of the institution's financial stability does not contain any documentary evidence of financial stability and no evidence is given of assured sources of funds. We find the recommendation of the Office of Education that the petition be denied to be persuasive. In our opinion, the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily establish that, in its present state of development, the college can be considered as having met the requirements of the statute. The appeal will be dismissed.

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

MATTER OF ESPOSITO

In SECTION 223 Proceedings

A-5804401

Decided by Regional Commissioner April 15, 1964

An alien who unlawfully entered this country and remained here in an illegal status is ineligible for a permit to reenter the United States under section 223, Immigration and Nationality Act, since he has not been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.

This case is here for consideration of the appeal from the denial of the application for a permit to reenter the United States as provided in section 223 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The District Director, Cleveland, Ohio, denied the application on March 13, 1964, for the reason that the applicant is ineligible for the issuance of a permit to reenter the United States because he has not been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.

Applicant is a 66-year-old married native and citizen of Italy. This application was filed on September 27, 1963, with the District Director, Cleveland, Ohio, and he subsequently departed from the United States to Italy on October 26, 1963, to join his wife there. He has presented in support of his application a notarized statement in which he admits that he entered the United States unlawfully as a crewman in August, 1962. In that statement he specified that his entry occurred at Niagara Falls, New York, but in a subsequent letter to the District Director he advised that his entry actually occurred at Norfolk, Virginia, where he deserted his vessel on August 31, 1926. In support of his statements concerning his entry into this country, applicant has also submitted an official document from the Captain of the Port, Port of Catania, Italy, which corroborates the applicant's statements concerning his unlawful entry into the United States as a deserting crewman. Applicant has stated further that when he registered under the Alien Registration Act of 1940 and when he applied for a certificate of identification as an enemy alien in 1942, he assumed the identity of a person named Francesco Borsa, since he was afraid to reveal his true identity.

It is clear on the record that the applicant unlawfully entered the United States and remained here for many years in an illegal status. Having not been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, he is not eligible for a permit to reenter this country as a returning resident and the application was properly denied. The decision of the District Director will, therefore, be affirmed and the appeal will be dismissed.

ORDER: The decision of the District Director, Cleveland, Ohio, is affirmed and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.

MATTER OF PETERSON

In VISA PETITION Proceedings

A-8952166

Decided by Regional Commissioner December 19, 1963

Beneficiary, who is employed on a cattle ranch engaged in raising purebred herefords for sale and show purposes, and who is responsible for the feeding of young calves up to the age of about 15 months and of the bulls kept on range for breeding purposes, who assists in the vaccination and immunization of the stock, treats minor ailments, measures and mixes the feed grains according to prepared formulas, grooms and cares for animals being prepared for exhibition purposes, assists with haying and in the irrigation and cultivation of the farm land is ineligible for first preference classification under section 203(a)(1), Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, since the duties performed are duties ordinarily performed by a good ranch hand or herdsman and do not require the high education, technical training, specialized experience or exceptional ability contemplated by the statute.

This case comes before the Regional Commissioner on appeal from the decision of the District Director, San Francisco, who denied the petition on the grounds that the duties of the position for which petitioned do not require the high education, technical training, specialized experience or exceptional ability to the degree contemplated by the statute for first preference classification.

Petitioner is owner and manager of the cattle ranch "Ruby Mountain Herefords" near Elko, Nevada. This ranching business was established in 1930. Petitioner has approximately 2,000 head of cattle ranging on 15,000 acres of fee-simple land and employs from eight to seventeen persons. The ranch is valued at about $100,000 with an annual income of $75,000 to $90,000. Purebred herefords are raised for sale and show purposes.

Beneficiary is a 56-year-old married male, a native and citizen of Spain who was admitted into the United States as a crewman at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on May 15, 1953, for a period not to exceed 29 days. He deserted his ship, went west and has been employed by the petitioner in Nevada since June of 1953. Following his apprehension, he was served with an order to show cause and at a hearing

accorded by a Special Inquiry Officer on March 26, 1956, was found to be deportable and granted voluntary departure with an alternate order of deportation. Various private bills introduced periodically in his behalf since 1953 have failed of passage. On April 10, 1963, the visa petition for first preference classification was filed in his behalf.

The petitioner states that beneficiary is responsible for the feeding of the young calves up to the age of about fifteen months, that beneficiary assists in the vaccination and immunization of the stock and treats minor ailment. He measures and mixes the feeed grains according to prepared formulas and grooms and cares for the animals that are being prepared for exhibition purposes. He is also responsible for the feeding of bulls that are kept on the range for breeding purposes. During the Spring and Summer months, he assists in the irrigation and cultivation of the farm land and assists with the haying. The clearance order issued by the Bureau of Employment Security titles the position to be filled as "cattle breeder" and describes the duties as "Takes care of the health, welfare, feeding, halter breaking and exhibition of from 40 to 50 head of registered hereford cattle both while at the home ranch and while on the road exhibiting. Compounds feed formulas as directed. Observes daily health of stock by frequent inspection. Tests cattle and inoculates or treats with salves when necessary." The clearance order further shows that a minimum of five years' experience in the care and exhibition of purebred beef cattle is required and that the position requires a man who is gentle and tolerant with stock.

The Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Volume I, defines a "cattle breeder" as one who "Breeds and raises purebred beef or dairy cattle for sale to Dairymen II, Cattle Ranchers; and other growers. Keeps pedigree records. Grooms cattle and exhibits them at fairs, conventions, and other gatherings."

Petitioner is in reality the "cattle breeder." While it is true the beneficiary grooms the cattle, he is not the exhibitor. The petitioner, Ruby Mountain Herefords, is the exhibitor. The petitioner breeds and raises the purebred stock and keeps the pedigree records. The petitioner, himself, and others who have presented letters attesting to the beneficiary's ability to perform the tasks of the position refer to the beneficiary as "herdsman" which is a more descriptive title of his duties.

We agree with counsel that beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties as set forth by the petitioner and that petitioner needs the services of an employee to perform these duties. However, we must agree with the District Director that the tasks performed do not require the high education, technical training, specialized experience or special ability as contemplated by the statute for first preference classification.