Court Opinion

ID: 9460346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:47:47.164896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:50.957488
License: Public Domain

CLARK, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in holding that judicial review is proper.
The majority opinion does not hold that the RMA’s refusal to certify Dhek-ney as a third preference alien was arbitrary and capricious. See Golabek v. RMA, 329 F.Supp. 892 (E.D.Pa.1971). Instead, it premises its conclusion that the reviewing officer must have applied an incorrect legal standard upon two factors: (1) the RMA reviewing officer’s opinion did not specifically speak in terms of the “at the place” requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (14), and (2) the record contains “not a whisper of evidence relating to availability of workers — mechanical engineers or civil engineers — in the area of Dallas, Texas.” I am persuaded that this reasoning is predicated upon two misconceptions. First, the majority fails to accord the RMA findings the presumptive correctness to which they are entitled and secondly, the majority fails to recognize the correct burden of proof to be applied in this case.
I do not say that the RMA can disregard the “at the place” requirement of 1182(a) (14), but I do say that they have not done so. In the instant case, the reviewing officer stated that based upon his communications with the National Registry for Engineers “it is clear that there is no shortage of qualified United States’ workers.” Such language is entirely consistent with application of the correct statutory standard.1 For example, the reviewing officer could have considered only those individuals listing a residence in the Dallas area or indicating an interest in locating there in making his determination, or he could have determined that because of the large number of qualified mechanical engineers listed, the statistical probability was such that some of these would be interested in working in the Dallas area. The majority, however, decides that because the reviewing officer’s findings do not track the statute in haec verba he must have overlooked the terms of the statute he is charged with applying. *546This deduction is contrary to the presumption of correctness which must be accorded the RMA’s administrative findings. Furthermore, conceding arguendo the lack of “a whisper” of evidence in the record of availability of qualified workers in the Dallas area would not change things. The majority does not decide that the RMA’s determination was contrary to the proof and therefore arbitrary and capricious, but only that the reviewing officer applied the wrong standard.
The statute under which Dhekney sought certification, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14), is phrased in terms of an alien’s ineligibility unless it can be certified that such alien meets the requirements specified in 1182(a) (14) (A) & (B). Accordingly, the burden was on Dhekney to show entitlement to certification and not upon the RMA to demonstrate that he was not so entitled. I would not find that the RMA abused its discretion in not certifying Dhekney. Dhekney and Reddy presented no evidence to show unavailability of workers in the Dallas area. Reddy’s asserted failure to find a replacement for Dhek-ney is too narrow and subjective to meet such a burden. The statute is not designed to fulfill a peculiar manpower requirement of a particular employer but is designed to benefit “prospectively the national economy, cultural interests, or welfare of the United States.” As recognized by the reviewing officer, Reddy created the description of a unique combination of skills which were really job-acquired talents rather than qualifications for employment (civil engineer proficient in light gauge steel structures), adopted them as prerequirements for its job, and then has sought certification for Dhekney upon its failure to find any other individual with such a novel combination of skills.
Because I would affirm, I respectfully dissent.

. It is worthy of note that the certifying officer whose decision was before the reviewing officer found that “[l]abor market information indicates a surplus of engineers who are willing to relocate.”