Interim Decision #2492 

MATTER OF FRIESS 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-2037484 

Decided by Board May 7, 1976 

Respondent, a religious trainee at a Buddhist Community, who would be performing work 

related to the maintenance and function of the Community, did not qualify for; the labor 

precertificatioz provided for the categories of employment listed in 29 CFR 60.7 

Schedule A, Group III, and was not otherwise exempt from the labor certification 

requirement provided in section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Absent such tabor certification, respondent was ineligible for adjustment of status 

under section 245 of the Act. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2)—I8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)j—Nonimmigrant 

trainee—remained longer. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: 

Jeffrey H. Swartzbaugh, Esquire 

Lamantia, Gel acak & Swartzbaugh 

816 Prudential Building 

Buffalo, New York 14202 

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Richard K. Rogers 

Acting Trial Attorney 

This is an appeal from the September 26, 1975 decision of the immigration judge in which he found the respondent deportable as charged, 

denied his application for adjustment of status, and granted him two 

months voluntary departure, with an alternate order of deportation to 

Germany. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondent, a native and citizen of Germany and a landed immigrant in Canada, was admitted to the United States on December 31, 

1973 as a nonimmigrant trainee authorized to remain until March 31, 

1974. His application for status as a permanent resident, filed on 

January 17, 1974, was denied by the district director on September 23, 

1974 on the ground that the respondent was going to be employed in the 

United States, was not exempt from the labor certification requirement 

of section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and did not 

have a labor certification or, therefore, a priority date. The district 

director concluded that the respondent was ineligible for adjustment of 

status. On November 18, 1974 the respondent was granted seven days 

668 
Interim. Decision #2492 

within which to depart from the United States; he failed to depart. 

Deportability is conceded. 

The facts of this case are as follows. The respondent; a lawyer by 

profession in Germany, journeyed to Canada, where he became a landed 

immigrant, and studied at the Zen Center in Toronto, Canada from 

September 1972 to March 1973. Because there are only members but no 

Zen teachers at the Center in Toronto, the respondent wished to enter 

the United States to complete his training at the Zen Center, which is a 

Buddhist Community, in Rochester, New York. He wanted to enter the 

United States for 18 months, but was informed that he could enter for 

only six months at a time and apply for extensions. His order to show 

cause shows that he was admitted for only three months. The respondent testified that when he applied for his first extension he was told it 

was very unlikely he could get it renewed for a long time, so he sought 

the advice of a lawyer. 

According to the director of the Zen Center, in his letter of January 

30, 1974, the program at the Zen Center includes "study, zazenmeditation, manual work, and various other activities, all of which are 

intended to lead to religious awakening, or Enlightenment." The training period varies in length, depending on the individual readiness of 

each student. The Center is selective in its choice of students, since it 

cannot train a great many. The director of the ()enter felt that the 

respondent showed "exceptional promise" and would make a "genuine 

contribution towards a better society" if he could complete his training, 

which would take three to five years. The director of the Center then 

stated that he would personally guarantee that the respondent would 

not become a public charge. 

It appears to us that the work the respondent would do at the Center, 

chiefly maintenance of the Center and its functions, is part of the 

training program and must be done by the students or trainees there. 

However, although the Center probably would not hire outsiders to 

perform this work for wages, we think that a labor certification is 

required nevertheless. 

Aliens who seek to enter the United States to perform religious 

duties are considered to be coming to perform skilled or unskilled labor 

and therefore must obtain a labor certification, although they are precertified by regulation. 29 CFR 60.2(a)(1) and 60.7, Schedule A, Group 

III(a), (b), and (c). No provision is made for precertification or a waiver 

of certification for those who are in training for an occupation in one of 

the Group HI categories. Moreover, in an analogous situation, a student 

over 16 years of age who was potentially employable was required to 

obtain a labor certification. Matter of Redekop-Rempening, 11 1. & N. 

Dec. 674 (BIA 1966). 

On the basis of the foregoing, we find that because he does not have a 

669 
Interim Decision #2492 

valid labor certification, the respondent is not eligible for adjustment of 

status. Consequently, the following order will be entered. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

Further order: Pursuant to the immigration judge's order, the respondent is permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily 

within two months from the date of this order or any extension beyond 

that time as may. be granted by the district director; and in the event of 

failure so to depart, the respondent shall be deported as provided in the 

immigration judge's order. 

670