In re _______ [The Case of the Specialty Occupation and the L.A. Auto Show]
Administrative Appeals Office
2006 Immig. Rptr. LEXIS 18540 (2006)
- Written by Eric DiVito, JD
Facts
The petitioner (plaintiff) was a company that managed and produced the L.A. Auto Show. The petitioner sought to employ the beneficiary as a human-resources manager on an H-1B visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The director of the California Service Center denied the petition, and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) initially denied the petitioner’s appeal. The petitioner filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking declaratory relief. Then, on its own motion, the AAO reopened the proceeding to reconsider its decision. The AAO requested additional information from the petitioner concerning the specific job duties to be performed by the beneficiary. The petitioner’s job duties included hiring staff, drafting a policy manual, training, recruiting, developing compensation plans, preparing budgets for personnel, maintaining employment records, and developing and implementing personnel policies. The beneficiary had a bachelor’s degree in psychology from a college in the Philippines. Under the Occupation Outlook Handbook (handbook), entry-level human-resources manager positions could be filled by individuals with a wide range of degrees. The petitioner submitted a letter prepared by a University of Minnesota professor proffering that the performance of the human-resources position offered by the petitioner would impose a degree requirement on the beneficiary.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.