Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

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. Counsel has argued that if the "requirements are met in any degree, the petition should be granted.” We do not agree. The tasks to be performed must be of a degree of complexity or difficulty that only a person with a high education, technical training, exceptional ability or specialized experience could, because of these qualifications, proficiently perform the duties. The duties performed by the beneficiary are duties ordinarily performed by good ranch hands or herdsmen and do not meet first preference standards. The appeal must be dismissed and the decision of the District Director to deny the application be affirmed.

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed and the decision of the District Director to deny the application be affirmed.

MATTER OF LEWIS

Application for PERMISSION TO REAPPLY

A-11341677

Decided by Acting Regional Commissioner March 23, 1964

Because of his past convictions and deportations for illegal entry upon a false

claim of U.S. citizenship, applicant is denied permission to reapply for admission, pursuant to section 212(a) (17), Immigration and Nationality Act, in the exercise of discretion since his temporary admission under the provisions of section 212(d) (3) of the Act may be considered in connection with an application to a United States consul for a nonimmigrant visa should a pressing need for medical treatment for himself or some other member of his family require him to come to the United States at some future time.

The case is on appeal from the denial of the application by the District Director at Chicago. The District Director denied the application on the ground that the applicant's past immigration record does not warrant favorable exercise of the discretion to grant the application.

The applicant, 37 years old, married, a native and citizen of British Honduras, who was deported from the United States on October 1, 1957, desires to reenter the United States as a visitor. On appeal, he states that he would like to know that if sickness should occur in his family or among his wife and children, he would be in a position to bring them to the United States for any sort of medical treatment not available in his country.

The applicant first entered the United States on July 31, 1944 as an agricultural worker. He was reported on October 15, 1946 to be absent without leave from the Department of Agriculture Holding Center. He was apprehended on the same day and he departed voluntarily to British Honduras under safeguards on November 1, 1946.

On October 14, 1956 the applicant entered the United States at San Ysidro, California without inspection by claiming to be a United States citizen. He was apprehended on September 4, 1957. He was convicted in the United States District Court, San Diego, California on September 23, 1957 for entering the United States in that unlawful manner. He was sentenced to imprisonment for four months but execution of the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for five years on condition that he remain outside the United States. He was deported from the United States on October 1, 1957. The record shows that he entered the United States on October 14, 1956 to seek employment and to reside.

On July 4, 1960 he arrived at the port of San Ysidro, California and attempted to enter the United States again by claiming to be a United States citizen. He was paroled into the United States for prosecution. He was convicted in the United States District Court, San Diego, California on July 18, 1960 of illegally attempting to enter the United States after deportation. He was sentenced to imprisonment for two months for that offense. He was committed at the same time for an additional four months for the crime of which he had been convicted on September 23, 1957, and for which he had been placed on probation. He was given a hearing in exclusion proceedings on November 16, 1960 and was ordered excluded and deported as an immigrant without a visa. The record shows that he attempted to enter the United States on July 4, 1960 for the purpose of working in this country in order to support his wife and children who were residing in British Honduras, and he was deported on December 17, 1960 pursuant to the exclusion order.

On July 27, 1962 he arrived at the port of New Orleans with a visitor's visa and was paroled into the United States for a hearing before a special inquiry officer. He was instructed to report to the New Orleans office on July 30, 1962 and then to the Chicago office on or before August 6, 1962. After a sworn statement was taken from him in Chicago on August 6, 1962, he was released pending further notice to appear for a hearing. The notice sent to him on August 21, 1962 to appear for a hearing on August 28, 1962 was returned undelivered since he was not known at the address he gave. After an extensive investigation to locate him, his departure to British Honduras on December 18, 1963 was verified. We

agree with the District Director's decision to deny the application. Should a pressing need for medical treatment for himself or some other member of his family require him to come to the United States temporarily at some future time, the matter of authorizing his temporary admission under the provisions of section 212(d) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act may be considered in connection with his application to a United States consul for a nonimmigrant visa.

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

« ÎnapoiContinuați »