Matter of Wing's Tea House

The job offer listed required experience as at least one year. The statement of qualifications listed the beneficiary's experience as Chinese specialty cook from April 1974 to July 1974, the signature date on the statement. The labor certification was issued October 4, 1974, and the instant petition was received by the Service on December 11, 1975. With the petition, the petitioner submitted a copy of a letter dated November 19, 1975, to the Department of Labor requesting recertifica- tion of the alien employment certification issued October 4, 1974, stating that at the time of the original submission of the application, the ben- eficiary did not possess the required experience. In a reply dated De- cember 2, 1975, the Department of Labor advised that recertification was unnecessary, and that if the alien now meets the minimum experi- ence requirements of the employer, the certification is as valid as it was when originally certified. This reply also instructed the petitioner to file a new petition with the Service along with the previously issued certifi- cation. The petitioner followed these instructions, filing the petition, denial of which is now before us on appeal. Through his attorney, the petitioner requested oral argument in connection with his appeal and such argument was scheduled for Feb- ruary 7, 1977. However, a letter under date of January 11, 1977, fur- nished by counsel which expands on the arguments furnished with the initial appeal, and the petitioner's failure to appear for oral argument on February 7, indicate that oral argument is not now glesired. In his brief on appeal and his January 11 letter, the petitioner contends that the District Director's decision is unjust, and argues that there is a conflict of interpretation of the law by the two Government agencies (the Department of Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service). The petitioner acknowledges that at the time of issuance of the labor certification October 4, 1974, the beneficiary did not have the requisite job experience but submits that the application for alien employment certification was filed in anticipation of his acquiring the required ex- perience during the proceedings. The petitioner further contends that since the labor certification is considered valid by the Department of Labor, the issuing authority, it should be considered valid by the Ser- vice, and as the beneficiary now has the required experience, the instant petition should be approved. The petitioner's view that denial of the petition stems from a conflict of interpretation of the law between this Service and the Department of Labor is understandable. However, Title 8, Code of-Federal Regula- tions, section 204.1(c)(2) states: "In the case of a sixth preference peti- tion (except for an occupation listed in Schedule A), the filing date of the petition within the meaning of section 203(c) of the Act shall be the date the request for certification was accepted for processing by any office within the employment service system of the Department of Labor."

职位邀请所列要求经验为至少一年。资格声明所列受益人的经验为1974年4月至1974年7月担任中国特色厨师，即该声明的签署日期。劳工证于1974年10月4日签发，本申请于1975年12月11日由移民局收到。 随申请一并提交的还有一封日期为1975年11月19日致劳工部的信函副本，请求对1974年10月4日签发的外籍人士就业证明予以重新认证，信中称在最初提交申请时，受益人不具备所要求的经验。劳工部在1975年12月2日的回复中告知，重新认证没有必要，如果该外籍人士现在符合雇主的最低经验要求，该证明与其最初认证时同样有效。该回复还指示申请人连同先前签发的证明向移民局提交新的申请。申请人遵循了这些指示，提交了申请，该申请被否决，现上诉至我处。 申请人通过其律师请求就上诉进行口头辩论，该辩论原定于1977年2月7日举行。然而，律师提供的日期为1977年1月11日的信函对初次上诉时提出的论点作了扩展，且申请人未于1977年2月7日出庭参加口头辩论，表明现在不再希望进行口头辩论。在其上诉摘要和1月11日的信函中，申请人主张地区主任的决定不公正，并辩称两个政府机构（劳工部和移民与归化局）对法律的解释存在冲突。申请人承认在1974年10月4日劳工证签发时，受益人不具备所要求的工作经验，但提出外籍人士就业证明申请是在预期其于程序期间获得所需经验的情况下提交的。申请人进一步主张，既然劳工部作为签发机关认为劳工证有效，移民局也应认为其有效，且由于受益人现在具备所要求的经验，本申请应予批准。 申请人认为否决申请源于本局与劳工部之间对法律的解释冲突，这是可以理解的。然而，《联邦法规汇编》第8编第204.1(c)(2)条规定：“对于第六优先类别申请（附表A所列职业除外），本法第203(c)条所指的申请提交日期应为劳工部就业服务系统内任何办公室受理认证请求之日。”

The Service, therefore, has no choice but to hold to the date the certifi- cation request was received in the local office of the Kentucky Employ- ment Service System (August 12, 1974), as the filing date of the sixth- preference visa petition. Clearly then, the alien beneficiary did not possess the requisite one year experience at the time the petition was "filed," and did not gain a year as a Chinese food specialty cook until April 1975. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 45, states education or experience gained subsequent to the filing date of a third-preference visa petition may not be considered in support thereof, since to do so would result in according the beneficiary a priority date for visa issuance at a time when not qualified for the preference sought We find no reason to change this line of reasoning simply because the preference sought is sixth rather than third. In either case, the beneficiary would receive a preferred priority date at a point in time when he is not qualified to perform the duties sought by the petition. The Department of Labor's opinion of the alien's qualifications is only advisory in nature. Issuance of a labor certification is not simply a determination that the alien has been found to possess the requirements outlined in Form MA-7-50B, Job Offer for Allen Employment, nor does its issuance mandate approval of a visa petition for preference status under section 203(a)(6) of the Act. The purpose of a labor certification is to show compliance with section 212(a)(14). The certification issued by the Department of Labor in immigrant visa proceedings reads as fol- lows: Certification. Pursuant to the provisions of section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended, I hereby certify that there are not sufficient workers available and the employment of the above will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed. It is for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to determine if the alien is qualified under the certification requirements. Section 203(a)(6) of the Act states: "Visas shall next be made available — — — to qualified immigrants . . ." Section 204(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: "After an investigation of the facts in each case, and after consulta- tion with the Secretary of Labor . . . the Attorney General shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true . . . approve the petition." The beneficiary in this matter was obviously not qualified for the status sought in the petition at the time the petition was filed. The filing date of the petition is fixed by regulation (8 C.F.R. 204.1(c)(2) supra) as the date of initial receipt in the Labor Department's employ- ment service system and this date cannot be changed by the Service to satisfy circumstances in an individual case. Therefore, notwithstanding that the Form 1-140 visa petition was received within the Service system on December 11, 1975, the visa petition filing date must remain August

因此，移民局别无选择，只能以肯塔基州就业服务系统地方办事处收到劳工证申请之日（1974年8月12日）作为第六优先签证申请的提交日期。显然，该外籍受益人（alien beneficiary）在申请"提交"时并不具备所要求的一年工作经验，直到1975年4月才获得一年中餐特色厨师的经验。 Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 45 案指出，在第三优先签证申请提交日期之后获得的教育或经验不得作为支持该申请的依据，因为这样做将导致受益人在其不具备所寻求优先类别资格之时获得签证签发的优先日期。我们认为，仅仅因为所寻求的优先类别是第六优先而非第三优先，就没有理由改变这一推理思路。无论哪种情况，受益人都将在其不具备履行申请所寻求职责资格的时间点获得优先日期。 劳工部对外籍人士资格的意見仅具有咨询性质。签发劳工证并不仅仅是认定该外籍人士已被认定具备MA-7-50B表（外籍人士就业职位邀请）所列要求，其签发也不强制要求批准该法第203(a)(6)条下优先身份的签证申请。劳工证的目的是证明符合第212(a)(14)条的要求。劳工部在移民签证程序中签发的证明内容如下： 证明。依据经修正的《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(14)条的规定，本人特此证明，没有足够的可用工人，且上述人员的就业不会对美国同类就业工人的工资和工作条件产生不利影响。 应由移民与归化局确定该外籍人士是否符合证明要求。该法第203(a)(6)条规定："签证应接下来提供给——合格移民……"该法第204(b)条相关部分规定："在对每宗案件的事实进行调查后，并与劳工部长协商后……司法部长如认定申请中陈述的事实属实……则应批准该申请。"本案中的受益人在申请提交时显然不具备申请所寻求身份的资格。申请的提交日期由法规（8 C.F.R. 204.1(c)(2)，同上）确定为劳工部就业服务系统首次收到之日，该日期不能由移民局为满足个案情况而更改。因此，尽管1-140表签证申请于1975年12月11日在移民局系统内收到，签证申请的提交日期仍必须为8月

Interim Decision #2570

临时决定第2570号

12, 1974. In the event a new labor certification request is submitted and certified by the Department of Labor and the petitioner submits a new petition, a later filing date will be established. This appeal will be dismissed. IT IS ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is hereby dis- missed.

12日，1974年。如果提交新的劳工证请求并经劳工部认证，且申请人提交新的申请，则将确立较晚的提交日期。本上诉应予驳回。 兹命令，本上诉予以驳回，特此驳回。