Interim Decision #1862 

MATTER OF RomANo 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-17477035 

Decided by Regiand Comatiasioner May 16, 1968 

Preference classification under section 205(a) (6) of the Immigration and Na.. 

tionality Act, as amended, as a live-in maid, is denied where the evidence 

does not establish that beneficiary is physically able to do the work; that 

petitioner is financially able to pay her the prescribed rate nor that he, is 

fact, intends to employ her to perform all the duties set forth in the job offer. 

This matter is before the Regional Commissioner on appeal from 

the decision of the District Director denying the petition. 

The petitioner seeks to have the beneficiary accorded preference• 

immigrant classification under section 203(a) (6) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act on the basis of his offer of employment as a 

live-in maid. The petition is supported by a labor certification issued 

December 1, 1967 by the Bureau of Employment Security pursuant 

to section 212 (a) (14) of the Act for a general maid. 

The job offer on which the labor certification was issued is for a 

live-in maid to be paid at the rate of $44 a week plus board and room. 

The duties to be performed are set forth as keeping the home clean,. 

doing all of the cooking, and helping with the children. The requirements for the position are "must be able to do the housework and cook 

and babysit." 

The beneficiary, the mother of the petitioner, is 55 years of age, & 

native and citizen of Italy. In Italy she had worked as a cateress. She 

entered the United States on March 5, 1966 as a visitor for pleasure 

and resided with the petitioner. On August 11, 1966 she applied foran extension of temporary stay for the reason that her daughter-in-law 

was expecting her first child and she wished to help with the baby. 

An extension was granted until March 4, 1967. On February 16, 1967 

she applied for a further extension of stay as a visitor for medical 

reasons. In support of that application, medical certificates dated 

January 11, 1967 and May 1, 1967 were presented. The first certificate 

said she was under the doctor's care for a gallbladder disease and was 

3211-654-69--48 731 
Interim Decision #1862 

unable to traveL The second certificate stated she had been under professional care for a gallbladder disease and hypertension since September 1966, that her physical condition was still poor, and that the 

attending physician was of the opinion that a trip back to Italy would 

be hazardous to her health. The further extension of stay> until September 4, 1967 was granted. The beneficiary has now returned to Italy. 

The petitioner's wife was employed for the first six months of 1967. 

Her gross earnings for that period were only $1,276.97. She expected 

the second baby in March 1968. A supplement to the job dated August 

10, 1967 said the services of the beneficiary would be required to care 

for the new baby and the other child. 

The petitioner was interviewed by an officer of this Service on 

February 7, 1968. He had a savings bank account with a. balance on 

that date of $3,116.30, with interest on the account of $59.64 for the 

year 1967. His gross earnings in 1967 amounted to $6,841. He admitted 

he had never employed a domestic; that the only effort he had made 

to obtain household help was by word of mouth; and that he would 

not consider employing any person for this position except his mother. 

He asserted the position is permanent, that his mother is in good 

health, and expressed the hope the mother will babysit after his wife 

had the second baby so that his wife can return to work. On appeal 

he says he has to support his mother while she is in Italy, that if the 

mother were here he could pay her the salary of a live-in maid, and 

his wife could return to her former employment. 

The entire record including the representations on appeal has bean 

carefully considered. It is noted that the earnings of his wife in her 

outside employment, without deductions, approximate the $44 a weak 

required to be paid the beneficiary and that her take-home pay may 

actually be less. It is found that the evidence does not establish (1) 

that the petitioner is financially able to pay the beneficiary the prescribed rate of $44 a week plus board and room; (2) that the beneficiary 

is physically able to do the housework, all the cooking, and babysit 

in the home as required by the job offer; and (3) that the petitioner 

in fact intends and desires to employ the beneficiary to perform all 

the duties set forth in the job offer. It is concluded that the petitioner 

has not established that the beneficiary is eligible for preference immigrant classification under section 203(a) (6) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 

It is ordered that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 

732