and their views expressed in a letter dated December 9, 1964, are as follows: On the basis of the material submitted with the Petition for Approval of School for Nonimmigrant Students, we do not find the College of the Scriptures to qualify as "an established educational institution or other recognized place of study" at the level at which it purports to offer programs and degrees. There is considerable question about its certification by the Kentucky Department of Adult Education, current approval for the training of veterans, and acceptance of credits by accredited institutions. There is no evidence that its high school department prepares students for entering accredited institutions of higher education. There are conflicting reports about the size of faculty and considerable doubt as to faculty qualifications for the level of program advertised. The Office of Education recommends that the Attorney General deny the Petition for Approval of School for Nonimmigrant Students submitted by the College of the Scriptures. A 1964 publication submitted with the petition shows the College of the Scriptures as having 13 undergraduates and 2 graduate students taking 8 or more semester hours; also 10 students are shown as taking less than 8 semester hours, making a total of 25 students. The faculty is shown as four full-time and six part-time members. The college awards the associate arts degree, bachelor of sacred arts (ministerial), bachelor of sacred literature, bachelor of theology, a two-year missionary certificate, and a high school diploma. The petition was filed to enable the petitioning college to enroll eight students from Jamaica. Such of these students as have a deficiency in pre-college level study would be provided with remedial high school subjects. Those taking high school subjects would be 19 years of age or older. It is stated in 8 CFR 214.3 (b) that, except for public, private, and parochial elementary and secondary schools, a "petitioning school shall submit a certification by the appropriate licensing, approving or accrediting official who shall certify that he is authorized to do so to the effect that it is licensed, approved, or accredited. In lieu of such certification, a school which is recognized by a state approving agency as an educational institution' for study for veterans under the provisions of P.L. 550 (82nd Congress) may submit a statement of recognition signed by the appropriate official of the state approving agency who shall certify that he is authorized to do so. A charter shall not be considered a license, approval or accreditation." The petitioner has been unable to satisfactorily comply with this requirement. The petitioner concedes that the program offered is not on a level with recognized liberal arts colleges, junior colleges or universities, but argues that the credits are transferable to other theological institutions which have been approved by this Service for foreign students. 245-235-67— -12 The evidence submitted in support of the petition has been carefully considered. However, on the basis of the unfavorable recommendation by the Office of Education, as well as the fact that the petitioner has failed to submit the documentation required by 8 CFR 214.3 (b), it is concluded that the decision of the District Director must be affirmed. ORDER: The decision of the District Director of Cleveland, Ohio is affirmed, and the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. MATTER OF MASAUYAMA In Visa Petition Proceedings LOS-N-4225 Decided by Acting Regional Commissioner April 29, 1965 Petition to accord beneficiary nonimmigrant classification under section 101 (a) (15) (H)(iii), Immigration and Nationality Act, as an industrial trainee in retail floristry, is denied since the beneficiary, who was admitted to the United States as a temporary worker under the provisions of section 101 (a) (15) (H) (ii), is a skilled ornamental horticulturist; the training program consists primarily of a repetition, review, and day-to-day practical application of his present knowledge; and the evidence submitted indicates that he will be engaged in productive labor and that any training received would be incidental thereto. Discussion: This case is before the Regional Commissioner on appeal from the decision of the District Director denying the petition for the following reasons: Beneficiary entered the United States June 20, 1963 as a temporary worker and has been employed by florists in the United States since that date as an ornamental horticulturist. You have failed to establish that the beneficiary requires training to be proficient in his occupation of florist. The petitioner is president of Flower View Gardens, Inc., a well established retail florist doing business at 1801 N. Western Avenue, Los Angeles, California. The beneficiary is a 25-year-old male, native and citizen of Japan, who was last admitted to the United States on June 20, 1963 as a temporary worker under the provisions of section 101(a) (15) (H)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This admission to the United States was based on the beneficiary's occupation as an ornamental horticulturist and the established need for his temporary services in the United States. Since his admission to the United States, the beneficiary has been employed in his occupation by florists in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and California. The petitioner offers to train the beneficiary in retail floristry design, marketing, general floral decorating, and retail florist manage ment. He has submitted an outline of a training program in support of the petition. The training program consists of 6 months basic floristry work with very little academic training. This is followed by general instruction and practical application with some emphasis on the business aspects. The petitioner estimates it will take two years to complete the training depending upon the ability of the trainee. Qualifications for a trainee are set out as: "Must have basic understanding of retail florist industry" and "some floristry background." The petitioner has not trained anyone under this program. In the brief in support of the appeal, petitioner stresses that knowledge, experience, and day-to-day application are necessary to obtain the thorough knowledge that a florist must have for a strong basic understanding of the retail flower industry. Five exhibits are attached to the brief on appeal, all of which deal with the Los Angeles and United States market. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that the trainee must be familiar with all of these exhibits. It is conceded that practical day-to-day experience will increase proficiency in any line of endeavor. However, the statute involved here is one that contemplates the training of an individual rather than giving him further experience by day-to-day application of his skills. The beneficiary, by the very terms of his admission into the United States, was a skilled ornamental horticulturist when he arrived in the United States. In fact, he was brought to the United States because his skills were in demand in this country. There is nothing contained in the first year of the training program that is other than a repetition of the beneficiary's present knowledge. The second year is devoted to a review of all phases of the first year plus the business aspects of retail floristry. A careful consideration of the record in this case reveals the District Director's denial of the petition was correct and that the additional evidence submitted indicates the beneficiary will be engaged in productive labor and that any training received would be incidental thereto. The appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed. MATTER OF UY In Deportation Proceedings A-10221792 Decided by Board May 5, 1965 Respondent, a 28-year-old native of the Philippines and citizen of China, who entered the United States as a student, has resided here a few months in excess of 8 years during which he received the degrees of Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in physics, and who has no family ties in this country, has not established that his deportation would result in "extreme hardship" within the meaning of section 244 (a) (1), Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, because of the mere fact that he would suffer some economic hardship. [Cf. Matter of Hwang, Int. Dec. No. 1319.] CHARGE: Order: Act of 1952-Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)]—Remained longer, student. The case comes forward pursuant to certification by the special inquiry officer of his order dated February 10, 1965 finding the respondent deportable on the charge stated in the order to show cause and granting him the privilege of voluntary departure in lieu of deportation with the further order that if he failed to depart when and as required he be deported to the Republic of the Philippines, alternatively to the Republic of China on Formosa. The record relates to a native of the Republic of the Philippines, a citizen of China, 28 years old, single, who was admitted to the United States at Honolulu, Hawaii on or about September 3, 1956 as a student and was authorized to remain in that status until September 2, 1957. Subsequently, he was granted voluntary departure in yearly increments conditioned on his maintaining studies or educational assignment and on May 15, 1963 a first preference visa petition was approved and he was granted permission to remain in the United States until May 14, 1964, further extensions being conditioned upon his remaining the beneficiary of an unexpired visa petition. However, on April 3, 1964 he left the employment |