Two weeks ago on this blog I gave an overview of the requirements for obtaining R-1 status.    In regard to the work to be performed, I stated the following:

The job itself has to be r-ligious.  For example, you probably will not be able to get an R-1 to be an accountant, even if you will be serving at a ch-rch.  On the other hand, you need to look at the essential characteristics of the job — I have obtained R status for gardeners and auto-mechanics, because they weren’t really gardeners and auto-mechanics — they were people who were using their gardening and work as auto-mechanics to disciple younger believers.  And discipleship is a r-ligious activity.

Today I wanted to elaborate on this idea.   The regulations relating to this subject are quite complex — although sometimes complexity just creates more opportunity.   The first requirement is that the position itself be viewed by the petitioning denomination (which can be just one ch-rch or one r-ligious organization) as a r-ligious occupation.   In other words, it is not enough that a ch-rch wants to hire someone, they have to view that position as “religious”.   So, normally, it would be impossible to get an R visa for an accountant or a gardener or janitor.   These are not normally viewed as r-ligious, and, in fact, are specifically excluded by the regulations.  I have clients tell me that they have been told by other attorneys that teachers cannot get R status, or, for example, a ch-rch musician cannot get R status.  You will hear that only p-stors and m-ssionaries can get R status, but that is not true.    In my opinion, it is even possible to get R status for a janitor, or, perhaps, even an accountant or secretary or computer technician, but, only under certain circumstances.

The key is, what is the position, and how is it viewed by the petitioning organization.  A p-stor or regular m-ssionary is easy.  A w-rship leader or musician or teacher is still quite workable, but you need to show that the ch-rch or petitioner views those positions as inherently r-ligious — that the ch-rch created those positions with an intent to advance its r-ligious purpose.  Now, you can’t get an R visa for an accountant or computer geek or janitor. But, think about a monastery where the monks spend their time doing manual labor.  They probably satisfy this part of the requirement for an R visa.  Why?  Because they are not manual laborers; they are monks who do manual labor.   I think that there is a reasonable chance that a monk could satisfy this part of the requirements for an R visa even if he did computer work or janitorial work — because, again, he would not be a computer geek or janitor, he would be a monk who did those things.

But there is a second part of the requirement that also needs to be fulfilled, and, in my opinion, this second part, although it is limiting, gives a lot of room for imaginative arguments.   Not only does the position need to be a “r-ligious” position, as we just discussed, but the work itself also needs to be “r-ligious”.   Let’s take a teacher.   Even if the church views it as a “r-ligious” position, if she is just teaching math, then it will not satisfy the requirements for R status.   But, if she is expected to take time to pr-y with the students and to talk with them about G-d and the B-ble, and if she uses the study of math to talk about how G-d is a G-d or order, and things like that, then you have a good argument that the work itself is r-ligious.    You can’t get an R visa to be a janitor.   But if you are a sp-ritual mentor who uses a mop and a scrub brush as a means to teach young b-lievers how to honor G-d with their work, you could qualify for an R visa.    I think it is even possible that such things as being an accountant or a computer geek could qualify if you could show that what you were doing was a ministry, or, like a monk, an act of worship.   But, I will be honest, you will have an uphill battle with those two types of service.  They are different because, at least it seems to me, the work mostly involves you and a computer screen — and it is harder to show how you really are ministering.   But even here, a well framed argument could work.

I hope this is interesting and helpful.   Remember that this is not legal advice.  It is just a summary of certain aspects of immigration law which may or may not apply to your situation.   I encourage you to consulate an attorney if you think any of this may apply to your situation.