Cynthia Asuncion appeals from the District Court’s granting of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's motion for a summary judgment on her petition for judicial review of the Service’s dеnial of a preference visa. The District Court had jurisdiction under the Declaratоry Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
Miss Asuncion, a native and citizen of thе Philippines, attended college for two to three years in the Philippines, reсeiving an associate in arts degree in homemaking in 1964 and a kindergarten-primary teаcher’s certificate in 1965. She taught in the Philippines for two years before entering thе United States as a non-immigrant visitor in April, 1966. She received extensions of stay in that catеgory to May 15, 1968. In 1967, she was employed as a teacher in religious education in the second grade at a parochial school in Pasadena, California.
On June 3, 1968, appellant filed a petition with the Service for a third preference clаssification visa, pursuant to Section 203(a) (3) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a) (3). Shе based her application on her profession of elementary schoоl teacher and religious worker. The statute reads in pertinent part:
“Visas shall next be made available * * * to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions, or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural interests, or welfare of the United States.”
The term, “professions”, is defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (32) to include “teachers in elementary or secondary schools.”
The District Director of the Immigration and Naturаlization Service denied the petition. An appeal to the Regional Commissiоner was also denied. Upon petition for review, the District Court entered summary judgment against appellant. We affirm.
As only a question of law is presented here, the District Cоurt’s resolution of the matter by means of granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment wаs procedurally proper. Kalatjis v. Rosenberg,
The scope of judicial review in cases of denial of preference classification visas is excеedingly narrow. This
*525
court is limited to a determination of whether the Attorney General has abused his discretion in denying the classification required for the preferential visa. Pizarro v. District Director,
Appellant alleges an abuse of discretion in that the Service’s decision was based solely on her lack of a baccalaureate degree and failed to take into account hеr teaching experience both in the Philippines and in the United States. The Service and the courts have recognized that a teacher may qualify for a visa as а member of the professions without having received a baccalaureatе degree of the academic equivalent. Extensive practical expеrience may be an adequate substitute for such a degree. See Guinto v. District Direсtor,
“In the Matter of Strippa, 11 I. oí N. Dec. 674 it is held that professional recognition as a teacher normally requires the attainment of a baccalaureate degree. There is no shоwing in the record that the alien has obtained such a degree and it cannot be found that a combination of her academic studies and experience are equivalent to such a degree.”
Although Miss Asuncion may well be highly competent as a tеacher and a person of unimpeachable integrity and character, as her employer emphasized, we conclude that the determination of the Attorney General, or his designees, was supported by substantial evidence. Under those circumstances we cannot say that there was an abuse of discretion in denying to hеr a professional classification for a third preference visa.
We affirm the District Court’s entry of summary judgment for appellee.