Matter of Harry Bailen Builders, Inc.

This matter is before the Commissioner on certification pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.4 (1986). The decision of the district director, New Orleans, will be affirmed. The petitioner, Harry Bailen Builders, Inc., is a construction company which seeks to accord the beneficiary sixth-preference classification as a roofer. The beneficiary was previously admitted to the United States as a sixth-preference immigrant on October 15, 1980, on the basis of a like visa petition filed by the petitioner. The beneficiary abandoned his residence in the United States in May 1981 and sought to reimmigrate based on the original labor certification and visa petition. He was advised by a consular officer that he must reapply and follow the same procedure he did in 1979. The petitioner nevertheless seeks approval of a new petition, utiliz- ing the individual labor certification issued on February 13, 1980, and restoration of the beneficiary's original priority date. The peti- tioner explains that the position offered is identical to the position previously held and that an Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice employee advised the petitioner's officers that it is not neces- sary to obtain a new labor certification because the original certifi- cation remains valid.

本事项因依据8 C.F.R. § 103.4（1986）进行的认证而提交至专员。新奥尔良地区主任的决定将予维持。 申请人Harry Bailen Builders, Inc.是一家建筑公司，寻求将受益人归类为屋顶工的第六优先类别。受益人此前曾于1980年10月15日基于申请人提交的类似签证申请获准作为第六优先移民进入美国。受益人于1981年5月放弃了其在美居留，并寻求基于原始劳工证和签证申请重新移民。领事官员告知其必须重新申请并遵循其1979年所遵循的相同程序。然而，申请人仍寻求批准新的申请，使用1980年2月13日签发的个人劳工证，并恢复受益人的原始优先日期。申请人解释称，所提供职位与此前所担任职位完全相同，且一名移民归化局雇员告知申请人的管理人员，无需获得新的劳工证，因为原始认证仍然有效。

Interim Decision #3019

临时决定第3019号

The district director cited the applicable statutes and regulations and concluded that the labor certification became a part of the original visa petition filed in April 1980. Since the beneficiary had already used the petition to immigrate to the United States, the district director determined that the visa petition, and thus the labor certification, cannot be restored. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.4(f) (1986). The district director found that, absent a new labor certification, he was unable to approve the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(d)(1) (1986) and denied it accordingly. Counsel argues that the labor certification issued in 1980 is, in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 656.30(a) and (d) (1986), valid indefi- nitely and may only be invalidated where a determination of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact involving the labor certification has been made. Counsel submits on appeal that the visa petition should be approved using the 1980 labor certification but that the new petition should be accorded a priority date as of the date the new petition was filed. There are three issues to be resolved in this case: (1) whether the labor certification remained valid after it was used by the benefici- ary to immigrate to the United States; (2) whether or not the new petition can convey the same priority date as the original petition; and, if not, (3) whether the new petition can convey a priority date as of the date it was filed. On February 23, 1982, the Associate Commissioner, Examina- tions, advised the Chief, Division of Labor Certifications, United States Employment Service, Department of Labor, that the Service had recently clarified its regulations regarding the use and validity of a visa petition which has been successfully used to obtain perma- nent resident status. The Service regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.4 (1986) had been amended to add paragraph (f), specifying that the petition ceases to convey a priority date or visa classification after it has been successfully used to obtain residence. The Associate Commissioner questioned whether a labor certification continues to be valid under these circumstances. On April 6, 198z, the Chief responded, stating that "Mlle labor certification issued by the Department of Labor applies to a par- ticular job, not to an. alien. When the job offer is filled by the arriv- al of an alien or for any other reason, the job offer would no longer exist. It follows, therefore, that the labor certification could not be used again after the lawful admission of an alien for permanent residence to take up the certified job offer." The Department of Labor's regulations state at 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(c)(2) (1986) that "[a] labor certification involving a specific job offer is valid only for the particular job opportunity and for the

地区主任引用了适用的法规和条例，并认定劳工证已成为1980年4月提交的原始签证申请的一部分。由于受益人已使用该申请移民美国，地区主任认定该签证申请、并因此该劳工证，无法恢复。见8 C.F.R. § 204.4(f) (1986)。地区主任认定，在没有新的劳工证的情况下，他无法依据8 C.F.R. § 204.1(d)(1) (1986)批准该申请，并据此予以拒绝。 律师主张，1980年签发的劳工证依据20 C.F.R. §§ 656.30(a)和(d) (1986)无限期有效，只有在已作出涉及该劳工证的欺诈或对重大事实故意虚假陈述的认定时，才可被宣告无效。律师在上诉中提出，应使用1980年的劳工证批准该签证申请，但新申请应获得截至新申请提交之日的优先日期。 本案需解决三个问题：(1) 劳工证在受益人使用其移民美国后是否仍然有效；(2) 新申请是否可以传递与原始申请相同的优先日期；以及，如果不行，(3) 新申请是否可以传递截至其提交之日的优先日期。 1982年2月23日，审查事务助理专员告知劳工部美国就业服务局劳工证司司长，移民局最近澄清了其关于已成功用于获得永久居民身份的签证申请的使用和有效性的条例。8 C.F.R. § 204.4 (1986)的移民局条例已被修订，增加了(f)款，规定该申请在成功用于获得居留后不再传递优先日期或签证类别。助理专员质疑劳工证在此情况下是否继续有效。 198z年4月6日，司长答复称，“劳工部签发的劳工证适用于特定工作，而非外籍人。当工作机会因外籍人到来或因任何其他原因而被填补时，该工作机会将不再存在。因此，在外籍人合法获准永久居留以担任经认证的工作机会后，该劳工证不能再被使用。” 劳工部条例在20 C.F.R. § 656.30(c)(2) (1986)规定，“涉及特定工作机会的劳工证仅对特定工作机会有效，并且对于

area of intended employment stated on the Application for Alien Employment Certification form." The Employment and Training Administration's Technical As- sistance Guide No. 656—Labor Certifications, states on page 104 of the 1981 publication that certain limitations are placed on labor certifications granted in Schedule A and non-Schedule A occupa- tions:

《外国人就业认证申请表》上所述的预期就业地区有效。” 就业与培训管理局的第656号技术援助指南——劳工证，在1981年版第104页指出，对A类和非A类职业中授予的劳工证设有一些限制：

A non-Schedule A labor certification is limited to the specific job opportunity, the alien for whom the certification was granted, and the area of intended employ- ment stated on the application. If any of these factors change, a new labor certifi- cation is generally required. (Emphasis added.) In this instance, the labor certification issued in 1980 was limited to the job opportunity offered on November 7, 1979 (the date the original Application for Alien Employment Certification was ac- cepted for processing by the Secretary of Labor's designated repre- sentative). That specific opportunity ceased to exist when the bene- ficiary immigrated and became employed by the petitioner. The job opportunity offered in the present proceeding is an altogether dif- ferent opening, approximately 5 years later than the date the bene- ficiary was employed in the original job opening. We do not find that the petitioner is exempted from a new labor certification merely because it wishes to employ the same beneficiary in the same occupation at the same geographical location after he has previously been admitted to the United States for lawful perma- nent residence and abandoned that status. Thus, the labor certification issued on February 13, 1980, cannot be used again to accommodate the admission of the beneficiary as a preference immigrant under section 203(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(6) (1982). Without a new labor certification issued in accordance with section 212(a)(14) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14) (1982), or evidence that the benefici- ary is entitled to labor precertffication under 20 C.F.R. § 656.10 (1984) (Schedule A), the visa petition cannot be approved and a new priority date cannot be accorded. As the district director correctly found, the beneficiary's priority date conveyed by the original petition cannot be restored. This would be contrary to the plain meaning of Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 204.4(f) (1986) which provides:

非A类劳工证限于特定工作机会、 授予认证所针对的外国人以及申请书上所述的预期就业地区。如果其中任何因素发生变化，通常需要新的劳工证。（着重号为原文所加。） 在本案中，1980年签发的劳工证限于1979年11月7日（劳工部长指定代表受理原始《外国人就业认证申请表》进行处理的日期）所提供的工作机会。该特定机会在受益人移民并受雇于申请人时即不复存在。本程序中所提供的工作机会是一个完全不同的空缺，比受益人受雇于原始工作空缺的日期晚约5年。我们不能认定，仅仅因为申请人希望在同一地理位置以同一职业雇用同一受益人——而该受益人此前已获准进入美国合法永久居留并放弃了该身份——申请人即可免于获得新的劳工证。 因此，1980年2月13日签发的劳工证不能再次用于便利受益人根据《移民和国籍法》第203(a)(6)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(6)（1982），作为优先移民入境。在没有根据该法第212(a)(14)条，8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14)（1982），签发的新劳工证，或没有证据表明受益人有权根据20 C.F.R. § 656.10（1984）（A类）获得劳工预认证的情况下，该签证申请不能获得批准，也不能赋予新的优先日期。 正如地区主任正确认定的，原始申请所传达的受益人的优先日期不能恢复。这将违背《联邦法规汇编》第8编第204.4(f)条（1986）的明确含义，该条规定：

Should the petitioner obtain a new labor certification for the beneficiary, a petition filed thereafter would have a priority date as of the date the new labor certification was accepted for processing. ORDER: The decision of the district director is affirmed.

如果申请人为受益人获得新的劳工证，则此后提交的申请将具有新劳工证被受理处理之日的优先日期。 命令：地区主任的决定予以维持。