VP 3-I-112782
Decided by Regional Commissioner December 18, 1957 Approved by Assistant Commissioner
First preference quota status under Immigration and Nationality Act — Mechanical Engineer — Limitation on period of employment.
(1) First preference quota status under section 203 (a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act will be conferred on mechanical engineer with many years specialized experience in textile plants.
(2) If petitioner and beneficiary meet requirements of section 203 (a) (1), other considerations such as their personal friendship or petitioner's desire to aid beneficiary to migrate to the United States are not basis for denial of petition.
(3) Beneficiary must have intent to reside permanently in the United States but is not required to have intent to remain permanently in petitioner's employ, nor is the petitioner required to continue beneficiary's employment without limitation as to time.
BEFORE THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
Discussion: The petitioner is a carpet-weaving firm with offices in New York and a manufacturing plant in Lehighton, Pennsylvania. The beneficiary alien is a native and citizen of Hungary. The petition, seeking classification of the beneficiary as a quota immigrant whose services are urgently needed in the United States within the contemplation of section 203 (a) (1) (A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, was denied by the district director on these grounds:
Investigation shows no effort was made to find a suitable employee in this country. Petition was prompted in part to aid an alien to migrate to the United States. The position is of limited duration yet the alien seeks permanent residence. It is held that the services of the alien are not urgently needed in the United States.
On October 3, this office affirmed the decision of the district director without further comment. Thereafter the case was certified to the Assistant Commissioner, Examinations Division, Central Office, who entered an order December 10, 1957, withdrawing the decision previously entered by this office and the district director. The case is now before us on remand.
The record establishes that the beneficiary is the holder of a mechanical engineer's diploma granted by the Royal Hungarian Jozsef Technical University in 1924, that he has extensive specialized experience in the field of mechanical engineering in textile plants, and that he is the author of several technical articles in this field, and the inventor of a complex automatic "lap winding" machine. The beneficiary's technical competence as a mechanical engineer is established beyond any doubt. The United States Employment Service has informed this Service that the domestic supply of mechanical engineers is insufficient to meet the needs of our country. No effort to find qualified persons in that field need be made. The first ground of denial cited by the district director, therefore, cannot be sustained.
It is true, as stated in the district director's order, that the petition was prompted in part to aid an alien to migrate to the United States. The president of the petitioning firm filed the petition at the request of an acquaintance of the beneficiary. Absent anything to indicate fraud or deception, that fact does not disqualify a beneficiary from the benefits of section 203 (a) (1) (A) of the act. If the petitioner and the beneficiary meet the statutory requirements, it is of no moment that they share a mutual friend or acquaintance, nor, indeed if they themselves happen to be close personal friends or relatives.
A petition to accord first preference under the quota implies an intent of the beneficiary to reside permanently in the United States. This cannot be construed as an intent to remain permanently in the employ of the petitioner, or as requiring that the services sought continue without limitation of time. In this case, the petitioner intends to use the beneficiary's services for approximately 2 years to work on a specific project in the textile plant, and to continue the employment when the project has been completed.
The position taken by the district director in the third ground for denial cited above is supported neither by the facts nor by the law. No definite limitation has been placed on the period of employment nor is there any statutory requirement that the beneficiary remain indefinitely in the employ of the petitioner (Cf. Matter of T---- C---- F---- F---- C----, VP 16-1795, 5, I. N. Dec. 454).
The fourth ground cited by the district director is, in effect, the same as the first and is not in accord with the facts. Actually, there is an urgent need in the United States for the services of the beneficiary.
Order: It is ordered that the decision of the district director be reversed and the petition approved.