What is the exact wording of eta 750a item #14 and #15.
Also, check this out from immigration-law.com regarding using experience at current employer before priority date.
10/03/2004: EB-2 Labor Certification Application and Dissimilar Occupation Exception Rule to Experience Gained with Employer
However, there are exceptions to the rule that the experience gained with the sponsoring employer is not considered experience. One of these exceptions is the rule of the experience in "dissimilar" occupations. This "dissimilar rule" is comfortably used to prove experience but not to prove education equivalency. For instance, if one gained with the sponsoring employer in an occupation which is related to the occupation but under the DOT it is a completely different occupation, such prior experience can be taken as a proof of experience for the purpose of proving the "experience" which is required in the labor certification application. Another example is a promotion to a manager position, again which is completely a different classification in the DOT. From the standpoint of the labor certification application, it is thus extremely important that employer states in the application that the employer will accept "such" related occupation. The alternative experience in this context should inherently be related to the job offered but "dissimilar" occupation. Accordingly, unless the labor certification application requires a related occupation experience, the exception rule of dissimilar occupation will fail to establish the qualification requirement for the labor certification application through the experience gained with the sponsoring employer. Besides under the dissimilar experience rule, the only experience gained with the sponsoring employer that can be used in the previous experience "in dissimilar occupation." Thus if the labor certification application required three years of experience and the alien gained two years of experience with the prior employers or with the current sponsoring employer in "dissimilar occupation" and gained additional one year of experience with the occupational classification with the sponsoring employer which is the subject occupation of the labor certification application, the alien is considered to have failed to prove the three-year work experience since part of the experience gained with the sponsoring employer is the same occupation which is the subject of the labor certification application and does not fall under the "dissimilar" occupation exception rule. This point was confirmed by one of the recent labor certification application case which was appealed to the BALCA, the appeal agency of the labor certification application, in September 2004. Additionally, there is another issue which has yet to be revolved. It is whether or not the experience in dissimilar occupation can be used to establish the five year progressive years of experience in the specialty which is the regulatory language, regardless of the same employer or different employer. If the dissimilar occupation is established by years of work experience in the same occupation prior to promotion to a "managerial" position (vertical change of occupations) which is the subject job for the labor certification application, arguably the employer may be able to use the dissimilar rule. The problem involves a situation which involves horizontal change of occupations at the same level in the responsibility which are considered "related" but "dissimilar." For instance, the change from process engineer or industrial engineer to manufacturing engineer. Conceptually, the case will face a problem to use the dissimilar rule in this context. The issue has yet to be resolved.
