Matter of Huckenbeck

• Citation: 13 I&N Dec. 118
• Decision Date: 16 January 1969
• Docket Number: Interim Decision Number 1935,A-14185236
• Parties: MATTER OF HUCKENBECK In Visa Petition Proceedings
• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals

13 I&N Dec. 118

MATTER OF HUCKENBECK

In Visa Petition Proceedings

Interim Decision Number 1935

A-14185236

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Decided by Regional Commissioner January 16, 1969

Since an industrial designer is not a member of the professions within the meaning of section 101(a)(32) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, beneficiary is ineligible for preference classification under section 203(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, as an industrial designer.

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Fred W. Hill, Esquire, 250 East First Street, Suite 900, Los Angeles, California 90012

This case comes forward on appeal from the decision of the District Director Los Angeles who denied the petition on November 26, 1968, in that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary, as an industrial designer, was a member of the professions eligible for preference classification under section 203(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.

Oral argument was requested and granted. Counsel appeared with the beneficiary as scheduled.

The petitioner is an industrial design firm located in Beverly Hills, California, serving the Los Angeles area as consultants to industry in product planning, design and development of products for mass production. The petitioner seeks the services of the beneficiary as an industrial designer and filed the present petition on June 28, 1968, for classification of the beneficiary as a member of the professions under section 203(a)(3) of the Act, as an industrial designer.

The beneficiary is a 26-year-old single male, a native and citizen of Germany who was last admitted to the United States as a visitor on May 26, 1968, to August 1, 1968, and now resides in Los Angeles. The record shows that the beneficiary attended a college of industrial design in Germany from October 1962 to June 1963 and on September 5, 1964 was admitted to the United States as a student to study industrial design at an art school in Los Angeles from which he graduated in May 1967 with a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in industrial design (product). The record also shows that the beneficiary had about four years work experience in industrial design in Germany and a year of practical training experience in industrial design in the United States.

The record indicates that the beneficiary is qualified as an industrial designer and well qualified to perfrom the duties and functions of the occupation. However, the issue in this case is to determine if the occupation of industrial designer may be considered a profession within the meaning and contemplation of section 101(a)(32) of the Act which defines the term profession and to determine whether the occupation of industrial designer requires the high degree of academic training characteristic of the professions.

Section 101(a)(32) of the Act defines the term "profession" as including but not being limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies or seminaries.

In the Matter of Auncion, 11 I. & N. Dec. 660, it is stated:

Examination of the occupations named in section 101(a)(32) of the Act indicates the following characteristics common to all: (1) recognition as a member of those professions normally requires the successful completion of a...