Interim Decision #1862

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