VP 07-I-14931Board of Immigration Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice
Decided by Central Office July 20, 1956
Preference quota status — Section 203 (a) (1) (A), Immigration and Nationality Act — Eligibility — Tailor with 20 years’ experience is eligible.
(1) The beneficiary of a first preference visa petition need not meet all of the qualifications set forth in section 203 (a) (1) (A) of the act but may establish eligibility if he qualifies under any one of the statutory standards, so long as his particular qualification bears a direct relationship to the services which he is coming to perform in the United States.
(2) A tailor who has conducted a tailor designer shop for men in Italy for more than 20 years and who is described as being “specialized in high degree of instruction and technical experience in hand workmanship” is held to have established that he possesses specialized experience of a nature to justify approval of a visa petition filed in his behalf by a tailoring firm in the United States which intends to employ him on occupational uniforms as well as civilian clothing requiring expert tailoring experience.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE
Discussion: Appeal from order of denial of the District Director at Buffalo, New York, denying the visa petition for the reason that it has not been satisfactorily established that the beneficiary possesses the technical training, specialized experience, and exceptional ability contemplated by section 203 (a) (1) (A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The case has been certified to this office.
The beneficiary is a native of Italy, 43 years of age, and presently residing at Camestra, Agrigento, Italy. The evidence of record discloses that he has served a period of apprenticeship in Italy at a tailor designer shop for men and has conducted a similar establishment of his own for more than 20 years. He is described by other tailors in the community as “very able and capable” in his trade and “specialized in high degree of instruction and technical experience in hand workmanship.” He attended a tailor designing academy for some 6 weeks in Italy in 1934 and satisfactorily completed the course in tailor designing for men’s clothing. The record also contains a photostatic copy of a letter from the Commanding Officer of American Infantry Company dated September 2, 1943, requesting permission for the beneficiary
Page 278
to obtain transportation in a military vehicle and stating that he, the beneficiary, was performing the tailoring work for the battalion. The letter concludes with the statement that he possesses excellent ability.
In explaining the need for the beneficiary’s services the petitioner states that, aside from the civilian clothing which is made to order, the company services many occupational groups which are uniformed. It is stated that this sort of uniforming is exacting and must be done according to rigid specifications and that the beneficiary’s qualifications and experience would be an asset to the company.
The Buffalo, New York, Office of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers has stated that tailors who are skilled in all phases of the trade are in demand and not readily available. This has been substantiated by the Bureau of Employment Security which has certified that qualified workers are not available within the United States for referral to the employer. The district director’s order of denial states that “it has not been satisfactorily established that the beneficiary possesses the technical training, specialized experience and (emphasis supplied) exceptional ability contemplated by section 203 (a) (1) (A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The statute under consideration speaks of services which are urgently needed in the United States because of the high education, technical training, specialized experience, or
[emphasis supplied] exceptional ability of the prospective immigrant. The use of the word “or” leads to the conclusion that the alien beneficiary is not required to establish that he possesses all of the enumerated qualifications but that his eligibility for the benefit sought may rest upon a showing of his qualifications under any one of these standards. Additionally, these attributes must have a direct relationship to the services which the individual is coming to perform in the United States. Thus, the prospective immigrant who would perhaps be qualified under “high education” would not be eligible for the preference if he were coming to the United States to accept a position not commensurate with the high education he possesses. The explicit requirements of the statute demand a correlation between education, training, experience, or ability on the one hand and the work or services to be performed in this country on the other.
The evidence in the case does not establish high education or exceptional ability. Neither does it lend itself to a finding that the beneficiary can qualify for a first preference quota status on the basis of technical training alone. Obviously, the 6 weeks’ training course that he had was not sufficient, in and of itself, to qualify him as a designer and custom tailor. The evidence does establish, however, that he possesses specialized experience of a nature that justifies approval of the visa petition.
Page 279
It is recognized that employment over a period of years in almost any field of human endeavor will vest in an individual some kind of experience. But the specialized experience necessary to qualify under the statute is experience acquired in a skilled, not an unskilled, occupation. It must also be comprehensive, showing that the beneficiary possesses a well-rounded ability to perform the various tasks that establish the occupation as a skilled one. For example, an individual might acquire experience and become proficient in sewing on buttons, shortening cuffs, and making minor alterations on readymade garments. Experience of this kind would not be specialized experience that would qualify him for a first preference quota status. Ability to perform rudimentary tasks such as these is readily acquired, and persons in the United States could be quickly trained to meet any need that might arise. On the other hand, the experience that the beneficiary possesses and which is needed if the duties of the position offered by the petitioner are to be fulfilled is not on that level. It can be acquired only by long and diligent work in an all-around capacity in the tailoring business.
In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that the appeal should be sustained.
Order: It is ordered that the appeal from the order of the district director denying the visa petition be sustained.
Page 280