Interim Decision #2125 

MATTER OF KATIGBAK 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-17918612 

Decided by Regional Commissioner October 18, 1971 

To be eligible for preference classification under section 203(aX3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, the beneficiary must be a qualified 

member of the professions at the time of the filing of the visa petition. 

Education or experience acquired subsequent to the filing date of such 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 status sought. 

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Earl R. Steen, Esquire 

840North Broadway 

Los Angeles, California 90012 

This case is before the Regional Commissioner as an appeal from 

the District Director's decision of January 29, 1971 wherein he 

denied the applicant's petition for preference classification as an 

accountant under section 203(aX3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, as not being academically qualified. No 

appeal was taken from the District Director's denial. On February 

3, 1971 counsel for applicant submitted a motion to the District 

Drector to reopen and reconsider his denial decision. On February 

16, 1971, the District Director denied that motion. On August 23, 

1971, counsel filed a petition for review in the United States District 

Court, Central District of California, and on September 9, 1971 the 

court dismissed the action, upon stipulation of the parties, to allow 

the petitioner to apppeal from the District Director's denial decision of January 29, 1971 if such appeal was actually filed within 15 

days of the court's order. Appeal was received by the District 

Director, Los Angeles, within the time set and that appeal will be 

honored. 

Oral argument in support of appeal was requested and granted. 

Counsel appeared as scheduled. 

The applicant is a 23-year-old single female, a native and citizen 

of the Philippines. She was admitted to the United States as a 

45 
Interim Decision #2125 

visitor at San Francisco on December 2, 1967 to June 30, 1968 and 

was granted a change of status to student at Los Angeles on 

September 11, 1968 with extensions of stay in student status to 

June 25, 1971 to attend Woodbury College in Los Angeles. Counsel 

has advised that the applicant attended Woodbury College until 

March 1970. She last applied for extension of stay in student status 

on June 25, 1970, indicating that it was her intention to continue 

study at Woodbury College. The application for extension of stay 

was granted with authority to remain until June 25, 1971. The 

applicant, however, did not again enroll at Woodbury during the 

period of her last extension. 

The record shows that she accepted unauthorized employment 

on September 29, 1970, during the period of her last extension in 

student status, and on December 6, 1970 filed the instant petition 

for classification under section 203(a)(3) of the Act as a member of 

the professions as an accountant to seek work as such with a firm 

of certified public accountants in Beverly Hills, California. 

By the filing of the petition, the applicant asserts that she is a 

member of the professions as an accountant and qualified as such 

by reason of her bachelor of science degree in business administration from a university in the Philippines, and a major in accounting achieved at Woodbury College and experience as a junior 

accountant since September 29, 1970 with the certified public 

accounting firm. The approval of the petition would give her a visa 

availability priority date as of the date of filing the petition, i.e., 

December 6, 1970. Petitions filed prior to February 4, 1971 for the 

profession of accounting were covered by the blanket Labor 

certification provided by 29 CFR 60, Schedule A, Group II. 

The occupation of accountant is recognized as being within the 

professions. The issue in this case is to determine if the applicant 

was academically qualified as a member of the professions as an 

accountant at the time the petition was filed and eligible for the 

preference sought. 

The Matter of Asuncion, 11 I. & N. Dec. 660 (modified by the 

Matter of Panganiban, 13 I. & N. Dec. 581), holds that a characteristic common to occupations in the professions is the minimum of a 

baccalaureate degree, while the Matter of Shin, 11 I. & N. Dec. 686, 

points out that the acquisition of a degree does not, per so, make 

the holder thereof a member of the professions. 

The degree or major must be academically appropriate to the 

profession for which petitioned. A baccalaureate degree in accounting or an academic major in accounting will satisfy the 

academic qualification requirements for the profession of accounting. The Service has consistently held that 24 semester units in 

accounting satisfy the requirements for an academic major. 

46 
Interim Decision #2125 

Colleges and universities generally require at least a minimum 

of 24 units in a specific field to attain a major in that field. 

The Occupational Outlook Handbook, published by the Department of Labor, (editions 1966-67, page 29, 1968-69, page 32, and 

1970-71, page 28) all state "for beginning accounting positions the 

Federal Government requires four years of college training, including 24 semester hours in accounting or an equivalent combination of education and experience." Counsel's statement that the 

Occupational Outlook Handbook, page 24, shows that from 20 to 24 

units in accounting are required for Federal employment as an 

accountant is not factual. 

Counsel has also offered a statement of qualifications for the 

position of accountant-auditor, for the County of Los Angeles, 

which requires graduation from an accredited course with 24 

semester units of accounting, including a course in auditing and if 

such auditing course has not been taken it may be completed 

during the first year of employment. This argument has little 

merit. The Service is not guided or controlled by local county 

position requirements. 

In support of the petition the applicant presented evidence of 

graduation from a university in the Philippines on May 7, 1967 

with a baccalaureate degree in business administration. Review of 

the transcript of credits from this university, which uses the 

semester unit system, shows that she completed two courses in the 

field of accounting for a total of six semester units and a threehour course titled "management accounting" in the field of bukness administration. Although this last course is shown to be in 

the field of business administration, we will, because of its course 

title, consider it as applicable to the field of accounting, thereby 

giving the applicant credit for nine semester units in accounting 

earned at the Philippine university. 

The applicant also presented a transcript of credits from Woodbury College relating to her matriculation at this school for the 

winter quarter of the 1968-69 school year through the winter 

quarter of the 1969-70 school year. Woodbury College is on the 

quarter system rather than the semester unit system. The evaluation branch of the University of California has advised the service 

that the quarter units earned at a school using the quarter system 

are evaluated at two-thirds a semester unit. Review of the transcript of credits from Woodbury shows that she had enrolled in five 

accounting courses at Woodbury, each of the courses being fourquarter-unit courses. However, one of the courses is shown as "I" 

or incomplete, for which she earned no credit. The four fourquarter-unit courses she did complete earned her a total of 16 

quarter units. Two -thirds of 16 quarter units gives her the equiva47 
Interim Decision #2125 

lent of 10 2/3 semester units earned at Woodbury. The nine semester units earned at the Philippine university, added to the 10 2/3 

semester units earned at Woodbury, give her a total of 19 2/3 

 semester units. This is short of the required semester units. The 

applicant's statement as contained in her Form ES 575, "Statement of Qualifications of Alien", executed December 4, 1970, accompanying her petition, that she receved an "accounting major" from 

Woodbury College in 1970, is not supported by the evidence. School 

officials at Woodbury College have advised that 57 quarter units in 

accounting are required at that school for a major in that field. 

This is the equivalent of 28 semester units. Applicant did not 

achieve a major in accounting at Woodbury. 

At the time the petition was originally filed on December 6, 1970 

it was accompanied by a letter dated November 23, 1970 from a 

member of the certified public accounting firm employing the 

applicant which states: "This is to certify that Fe Corozon Katigbak has been employed with us since September 29, 1970. We 

consider her to be a full-time, permanent employee. A portion of 

her duties are those of a junior accountant." The letter fails to 

describe her duties and responsibilities and certainly does not 

satisfactorily establish that she is employed as an accountant. It is 

noted that in the Form ES 575 previously mentioned the applicant 

describes her title at the certified public accounting firm as "junior 

accountant" and describes her duties as "verifies additions, checks 

audits, postings and vouchers, analyzes accounts and prepares 

statements." This description of her duties is self-serving and 

unsupported and is wording extracted exactly word for word, from 

the description of the occupation of junior accountant as defined in 

Volume 1 of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. No more 

credence can be given this description of her duties than is to be 

given to her claim, also contained in the Form ES 575, that she 

had received a major in accounting from Woodbury College in 1970. 

The District Director denied the petition on January 29, 1971 and 

denied the motion to reopen on February 16, 1971. The applicant, at 

the very most, had but 19 2/3 semester units in accounting and was 

academically not qualified as a professional accountant. Furthermbre, her academic preparation, coupled with her limited work 

experience, cannot be equated to the equivalent of a baccalaureate 

degree or a major in the field of accounting. The denial of the 

petition and denial of the motion by the District Director were 

well-founded and correct decisions. 

Counsel, with his brief presented in support of his appeal dated 

September 22, 1971, presented evidence that the applicant attended 

California State College, Los Angeles, during the spring quarter of 

1971 and completed a course titled "auditing 1", earning four 

48 
Interim Decision #2125 

quarter units. At the time of oral argument in support of the 

appeal (October 12, 1971), counsel also presented a "notification of 

grade change" dated September 29, 1971 from California State 

College, Los Angeles, addressed to "Dear Student", stating that 

"your grade in Bus. 321 (tax acctg) has been changed from Inc. to 

B. This notice does not indicate to whom addressed or the 

number of quarter units earned in the related course. 

Counsel argues that these units, earned subsequent to filing of 

the petition and subsequent to the District Director's denial 

decision, should be totalled with the units applicant had previously 

earned prior to the time of filing her petition. We do not agree. 

When a third preference petition is filed, it seeks to establish 

that the beneficiary is a qualified member of the professions at 

that time eligible for preference. If the petition is approved, he has 

established a priority date for visa number assignment as of the 

date that petition was filed. A petition may not be approved for a 

profession for which the beneficiary is not qualified at the time of 

its filing. The beneficiary cannot expect to qualify subsequently by 

taking additional courses and then still claim a priority date as of 

the date the petition was filed, a date on which he was not 

Qualified. 

Section 204 of the Act requires the filing of a visa petition for 

classification under section 203(a)(3). The latter section states, in 

pertinent part: "Visas shall next be made available to qualified 

immigrants who are members of the professions." (Emphasis 

added.) It is clear that it was the intent of Congress that an alien 

be a recognized and fully qualified member of the professions at 

the time the petition is filed. Congress did not intend that a 

petition that was properly denied because the beneficiary was not 

at that time qualified be subsequently approved at a future date 

when the beneficiary may become qualified under a new set of 

facts. To do otherwise would make a farce of the preference ystem 

and priorities set up by statute and regulation. 

Counsel also argues that the Service has failed to give due credit 

to the applicant's work experience and quotes a number of published decisions wherein an alien was found qualified as a member 

of the professions by a combination of education and work experience. The applicant in the present case had only two months of 

limited work experience prior to the filing of her petition when she 

had, at most, 19 2/3 academic semester units in accounting. This 

very limited experience does not make up for the lack of her 

academic credits. In the published decisions cited by counsel the 

petitioners generally had many years of responsible experience in 

supervisory and executive positions; some had taken additional 

vocational and/or specialized training in their fields, others had 

49 
Interim Decision #2125 

received honors in their field and were recognized as authorities in 

their professions. All had constantly enhanced their skills and 

progressively acquired greater responsibilities in their chosen endeavors. 

Considering all the factors discussed above, we find that the 

denial decisions of the District Director were proper. The applicant 

has not established that she is eligible for the preference classification she seeks. 

The Matter of Brantigan, 11 I. & N. Dec. 493, holds that the 

burden of proof to establish eligibility for a desired preference 

rests with the petitioner. That burden has not been met. The 

applicant has not etablished that she is eligible for preference 

classification under section 203(a)(3) of the Act. The appeal will be 

dismissed. 

The denial of this petition is without prejudice to the applicant 

submitting a new petition setting forth the new facts as they now 

exist. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed. 

50