dismissed EB-2 Case: Audit And Compliance

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
tJ.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JAN 11t 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: . 
INRE : 
PETITION: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to tha.t office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its .decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Ron Rosenberg"--{~ 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center (Director), denied the employment-based 
immigrant visa petition. The petitioner filed a Form I-290B which was rejected and resubmitted as a 
motion to reopen. The director denied the motion to reopen as untimely. The petitioner then 
appealed the decision to the Administr~tive Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a global data center services provider. It seeks to permanently employ the 
beneficiary in the United States as a manager of internal audit and compliance (BAS manager) 
pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment 
Certification, approved by the United States Department of Labor (DOL), accompanied the petition. 
Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the beneficiary did not satisfy the 
minimum level of education stated on the labor certification. Specifically, the director determined 
that the beneficiary did not possess the bachelor's degree in accounting, economics, finance, 
financial management, financial IT, or commerce as required by the terms of the labor certification. 
On appeal, counsel states that the beneficiary has a foreign equivalent degree based on her 
certification by the Further, counsel states 
that the is an academic institution with the authority to tssue degrees, and that the degree 
issued is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
The record shows that the appeal is properly filed, timely and makes a' specific allegation of error in 
law or fact. The procedural history in this case is documented by the record and incorporated into the 
decision. Further elaboration of the procedural history will be made only as necessary. 
In pertinent part, section 203(b)(2) of the Act provides immigrant classification to members of the 
professions holding advanced degrees or their ·equivalent and whose services are sought by an 
employer in the United States. An .advanced degree is a United States academic or professional 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree above the baccalaureate level. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The 
regulation further states: "A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the 
equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the 
alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree." /d. 
As a preliminary matter, counsel contends on appeal that the director violated 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(16)(i) by failing to notify the petitioner of derogatory information that it intended to rely 
upon in denying the petition. The cited regulation requires the director to disclose derogatory 
evidence "of which the applicant or petitioner is unaware." /d. · Specifically, counsel states that the 
director's interpretation of the evidence submitted in this case conflicts with previous AAO 
decisions. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that precedent decisions of United States Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) are binding on all its 
employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Precedent · decisions must be designated and 
published in bound volumes or as interim 
decisions. 8 C.P.R. § 103.9(a). Furthermore, the 
petitioner has in fact been afforded an opportunity to supplement the record on appeal. 
(b)(6)Page 3 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence 
properly submitted upon appeal.1 
As previously discussed, the ETA Form 9089 in this case was certified by the DOL. The DOL's role is 
limited to determining whether there are sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified and 
available and whether the employment of the alien will adversely affect the wages and working 
conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed. See Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 
20 C.F.R. § 656.1(a). 
It is significant that none of the above inquiries assigned1 to the DOL, or the remaining regulations 
implementing these duties under 20 C.F.R. § 656, involve a determination as to whether or not the alien 
is qualified for a specific immigrant classification or even the job offered. This fact has not gone 
unnoticed by federal circuit courts. See Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F. 2d 
1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984); Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008,,1012-1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 
The 
beneficiary possesses a foreign three-year bachelor's degree and membership in ACCA. Thus, 
the issue is whether that degree and/or certification is a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree. We must also consider" whether the beneficiary meets the job requirements of 
the proffered job as set forth on the labor certification. 
A United States baccalaureate degree is generally found to require four years of education. , See 
Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1977).2 This decision involved a petition filed 
under 8 U .S.C. § 1153( a )(3) of the Act, as amended in 1976. At that time, this section provided: 
Visas shall next be made available ... to qualiii.ed immigrants who are members of 
the professions .... 
The Immigration Act of 1990 Act added section 203(b)(2)(A) to the Act, 8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(2)(A), 
which provides: · 
Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are members· of the 
professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent .... 
1 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, 
which areincorporated into the regulations by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1). The record in 
the instant case provides no reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents newly 
submitted on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
2 In Matter of Shah the Regional Commissioner declined to consider a three-year Bachelor of Science 
degree from India as the equivalent of a United States baccalaureate degree because the degree did not 
require four years of study. ld. at 245. 
(b)(6)
Page4 
Significantly, the statutory language used prior to Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. at 244, is identical to 
the statutory language used subsequent to that decision but for the requirement that the immigrant 
hold an advanced degree or its equivalent. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of 
Conference, published as part of the House of Representatives Conference Report on the Act, 
provides that ''[in] considering equivalency in category 2 advanced ctegrees, it is anticipated that the 
alien must have a bachelor's degree with at least five years progressive experience in the · 
professions." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 955, lOlst Cong., 2nd Sess. i990, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6784, 1990 
WL 201613 at 6786 (Oct. 26, 1990). 
At the time of enactment of section 203(b )(2) of the Act in 1990, it had been almost thirteen years 
since Matter of Shah was issued. Congress is presumed to have intended a four-year degree when it 
stated that an alieri "must have a bachelor's degree" when considering equivalency for second 
preference (advanced degree professional) immigrant visas. We must assume that Congress was 
aware of the agency's previous treatment of a "bachelor's degree" under the Act when the new 
classification was enacted and did not intend to alter the agency's interpretation of that term. See 
Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-81 (1978) (Congress is presumed to be aware of administrative 
and judicial interpretations where it adopts a new law incorporating sections of a prior law). See 
also 5p Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991) (an alien must have at least a bachelor's degree). 
In 1991, when the fmal rule for 8 C.P.R. § 204.5 was published in the Federal Register, the INS 
responded to criticism that the regulation required an alien to have a bachelor's degree as a 
minimum 
and that the regulation did not allow for the substitution of experience for education. Mter 
reviewing section 121 of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649 (1990), and the Joint 
Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, the Service specifically noted that both the 
Act and the legislative history indicate that an alien must have at least a bachelor's degree: 
The Act states that, in order to qualify under the second classification, alien members 
of the professions must hold "advanced degrees or their equivalent." As the 
legislative history ... indicates, the equivalent of an advanced degree is "a bachelor's 
degree with at least five. years progressive experience in the professions." Because 
neither the Act nor its legislative history indicates that bachelor's or advanced degrees 
must be United States degrees, the Service will recognize foreign equivalent degrees. 
But both the Act and its legislative history make clear that, in order to qualify as a 
professional under the third classification or to have experience equating to an 
advanced degree under the second, an alien must have at least a bachelor's degree . 
56 Fed~ Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991) (emphasis added). 
There is no provision in the statute or the regulations that would allow a beneficiary to qualify under 
section 203(b )(2) of the Act as a member of the professions hol~ing an advanced degree with 
anything less than a full . baccalaureate degree (plus five years of . progressive experience in the 
specialty). More specifically, a three-year bachelor's degree will not be considered to be the 
"foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree . . See-Matter of Shah, 17 I&N 
(b)(6)
·-
Page 5 
Dec. at 245. Where the analysis of the beneficiary's credentials relies em work experience alone or a 
combination of multiple lesser degrees, the result is the "equivalent" of a bachelor's degree rather 
than a "foreign equivalent degree."3 In order to have experience and education equating to an 
advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, the beneficiary must have a single degree that is 
the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree (plus five years of 
progressive experience in the specialty). See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The degree must also be from a college or university. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) 
requires the submission of an "official academic record showing that the alien has a United States 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree" (plus evidence of five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty). For classification as a member of the professions, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) requires the submission of "an official college or university record 
showing the date the baccalaureate degree was awarded and the area of concentration of study." The 
AAO cannot conclude that the evidence required to demonstrate that an alien is an advanced degree 
professional is any less than the evidence required to show that the alien is a professional. To do so 
. would undermine the congressionally mandated classification scheme by allowing a lesser 
evidentiary standard for the more restrictive visa classification. See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple 
Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) per APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd 
Cir. 2003) (the basic tenet of statutory construction, to give effect· to all provisions, is equally 
applicable to regulatory construction). Moreover, the commentary accompanying the proposed 
advanced degree professional regulation specifically states that a "baccalaureate means a bachelor's 
degree received from a college or university, or an equivalent degree." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. 
Reg. 30703, 30306 (July 5, 1991).4 · . 
The documentation of record shows that the beneficiary earned the following educational credentials 
in a Diploma in _ 
and membership in the on March 31, 2005, following admission as an affiliate to the 
having passed the requisite examination. 
The transcripts accompanying the beneficiary's Diploma indicate that the beneficiary's degree was 
three years in duration. As such, it is not considered equivalent to a four-year bachelor's degree in 
the United States. See Matter of Shah. The Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), 
created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), 
3 Compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) (defining for purposes. of a nonimmigrant visa 
classification, the "equivalence to completion of a college degree" as including, in certain cases, a 
specific combination of education and experience). The regulations pertaining to the immigrant 
classification sought in this matter do not contain similar language. 
4 Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) (relating to aliens of exceptional ability requiring the submission 
of "an official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate or similar 
award from a college, university, school or other institution of learning relating to the area of 
exceptional ability"). 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
which USCIS sometimes consults as a resource to evaluate the U.S. equivalency of foreign 
educational credentials. According to its website, AACRAO is "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional 
association of more than 11,000 higher education admissions and registration professionals who 
represent more than 2,600 institutions and agencies in the United States and in over 40 countries." 
http://wWw.aacrao.org!About-AACRAO.aspx. Its mission "is to serve and advance higher education 
by providing leadership in academic and enrollment services." /d. EDGE is "a web-basedresource 
for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials." http://edge.aacrao.orglinfo.php. Authors for 
EDGE are not merely expressing their personal opinions. Rather, they must work with a publication 
consultant and a Council Liaison with AACRAO's National Council on the Evaluation of Foreign 
Educational Credentials.5 If placement recommendations are included, the Council Liaison works 
with the author to give feedback and the publication is subject to final review by the entire Council. 
/d. USCIS considers EDGE to be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of information about. foreign 
credentials ·equivalencies. 6 
EDGE indicates that a Diploma in is awarded upon 
completion of two to three years of university study comparable to study at a U.S. college or 
university for the same number of years. According to EDGE, therefore, the beneficiary's three-year 
bachelor's degree froni Nanyang Polytechnic is most comparable to three years of study at a U.S. 
college or university. As such, it is not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
With ·regard to the beneficiary's 
is: 
credential, EDGE states that 
Awarded after completion of 3 stages: Foundation, Certificate, and Professional, 
passing 3 examinations after each stage, and at least 3 years of practical financial 
expenence. 
5 See An . Author's Guide to Creating . AACRAO International Publications available at 
http://www.aacrao.orglpublications/guide_to_creating_intemational_publications.pdf. 
6 In .Confluence Intern., Inc. v. Holder, 2009 WL 825793 (D.Minn. March 27, 2009), .the court 
determined that the AAO provided a rational explanation for its reliance on information provided by 
AACRAO to support its decision. In Tiseo Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, 2010 WL 3464314 
(E.D.Mich. August 30, 2010), the court found that USCIS had properly weighed the evaluations 
submitted and the information obtained from EDGE to conclude that the alien's three-year foreign 
"baccalaureate" and foreign "Master's" degree were only 
comparable to a U.S .. bachelor's degree. 
In Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. 2010 WL 3325442 .(E.D.Mich. August 20, 2010), the court upheld 
a USCIS determination that the alien's three-year bachelor's degree was not a foreign equivalent 
degree to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Specifically, the court concluded that USCIS was entitled to 
prefer the information in EDGE and did not abuse its discretion in reaching its conclusion. The 
court also noted that the labor certification itself required a degree ·and did not allow for the 
· · combination of education and experience. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
http://edge.aacrao.org/country/credential/associateship-of-the-association-of-chartered-certified-
accountants-acca?cid=single (accessed January 7, 2013). EDGE states _ 
"represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the 
United States." /d. 
On appeal, counsel urges us to accept EDGE's conclusion that . is equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree. The full credential is not based on a four-year educational program, 
but instead relies on a combmauon of instruction, practical experience, and examinations. 
Therefore, the credential 
does not make the beneficiary eligible for professional 
classification. The pertinent regulation reads as follows: 
If the petition is for a professional, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that 
the alien holds a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
and by evidence that the alien is. a member of the professions. Evidence of a 
baccalaureate degree shall be in theform of an official college or university record 
showing . the date the . baccalaureate degree was awarded and the area of 
concentration of study. To show that the alien is a member of the professions, the 
petitioner must submit evidence that the minimum of a baccalaureate degree is 
required for entry into the occupation. 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) (emphasis added). The as noted by the NSC Director in his 
revocation decision, is a membership organization, not a college or university, i.e. a degree-granting 
institution, and membership in the is. not a U.S. baccalaureate or foreign equivalent degree. 
Accordingly, the beneficiary's membership in does not entitle her to classification as an 
advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
On appeal, counsel argues that any "academic institution" that awards degrees qualifies under the 
regulation. Counsel then cites the Oxford English Dictionary for the proposition that any institution 
offering any sort of education can be Considered a "college or university" under the regulation and 
that amounts to a qualified educational facility because it offers professional educational 
courses. 
Counsel then states that accreditation of any such educational facility must be made through the 
government and that possesses a Royal Charter issued by the Queen of England thus making 
it an accredited institution pursuant to the regulation. The Universities and Colleges Admissions 
Service (UCAS), the organization responsible for managing applications to higher education courses 
in the UK, however, does not list as an accredited college or university on its list of 
educational facilities. See http://www.ucas.com/students/choosingcourses/choosinguni/instguide/ 
(accessed January 8, 2013). The Royal Charter states that the mai:Q. purpose of is: 
to advance the science of accountancy, financial management and cognate subjects 
as applied to all or any of the professional services provided by accountants whether 
engaged in public practice (in partnership or through the medium of a body 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
corporate or otherwise), industry and commerce or the public service; to promote 
the highest standards of competence, practice and conduct among members of the 
Association so engaged; to protect and preserve their professional independence 
and to exercise professional supervision over them; and to do all such things as rna y 
advance and protect the character of the profession of accountancy whether in 
relation to public practice (carried on in partnership or through the medium of a 
body corporate or otherwise) or as applied to service in industry and commerce or 
the public service. 
.. at paragraph 3 (accessed January 8, 2013). The Royal Charter 
states that has "ancillary objects and powers" involving education including "to organize, 
fmance and. maintain schemes for the granting of diplomas, certificates and other awards" and "to 
encourage the study of such subjects by providing scholarships ... " /d. at paragraphs 4(g) and (h). 
Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the petitioner states that Royal Charters are generally 
granted to professional memberships and not to academic institutions. See 
http://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/royal-charters/applying-for-a-royal-charter (accessed January 
8, 2013). Although Royal Charters have been granted to academic institutions, Royal Charters are 
not solely granted to academic institutions. The Royal Charter does not provide with 
accreditation as an educational institution. 
Counsel also states on appeal that is accredited by OfQual and that the 
partner organization, is accredited in According to its 
website, "The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) regulates 
qualifications, examinations and assessments in England and voeational qualifications in Northern 
. Ireland. We are here to secure the standards of qualifications, and to promote confidence in them. 
And we are here to ensure that the system works well - that standards are delivered." See 
www.ofqual.gov.uk (accessedJanuary 8, 2013). OfQual does not state that it provides accreditation 
to educational institutions as opposed · to maintaining standards of courses offered and providing 
public information concerning educational opportunities. 
In addition, although may work with nothing has 
been submitted to demonstrate that the organizations are the same or that any accreaJtation of one is 
conferred to the other. The evidence submitted, instead, states that 
partners with a number of different organizations and has a business relationship with those 
organizations as opposed to being that organization's operating arm in a different country. In 
addition, the evidence submitted states that provides preparatory classes in regards to the 
exam and does not indicate that these preparatory courses are offered in pursuit of a degree 
as opposed to preparation and organized study for an exam. 
As previously discussed,.the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) requires that the beneficiary 
have a U.S. baccalaureate or foreign equivalent degree and evidence thereof in the form of an 
official college or university record to be eligible for professional classification. The is not 
an academic institution that can confer a degree with an official college or university record. See 
Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Cherioff, 2006 WL 3491005 *11 (D. Ore. Nov. 30, 2006) (finding 
(b)(6)
J 
Page 9 
USCIS was justified in concluding that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) 
membership was not a college or university "degree" for purposes of Classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree). Like the the ICAI is a membership 
organization, not a college or university, and membership in its organization is not a degree. While 
the beneficiary's membership in the may be "comparable" to a U.S. bachelor's degree, it is 
not a "foreign equivalent degree" to a U.S. baccalaureate degree within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). Accordingly, they do not entitle her to classification as an advanced degree 
profess}onal under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. · 
On appeal, the petitioner reiterates its previous contention that the beneficiary meets the minimum 
requirement for classification as an advanced ~ree professional based on her 
Counsel argues that membership issued by is a "foreign equivalent degree" under the 
regulations. Counsel cites as an example the secondary school structure of Belgium that does not 
award bachelor's degrees by that name as an equivalent scenario. Belgium's Licentiaat and 
lngenieur degrees, as noted in the EDGE documentation provided by counsel, "are awarded after 
two-three years of university-level studies" and are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. As stated 
above, any degree that is awarded must have originated from an accredited instftution; the evidence 
in the record does not establish that is an accredited academic institution. 
Counsel also cites the State Bar of California as an organization authorized by the state to provide 
education services in the form of continuing legal education and states that as membership in the 
State Bar of California is predicated upon a juris doctorate degree, the education provided is 
necessarily post:-secondary education. Counsel submitted no evidence to demonstrate that 
continuing legal education would be accepted by an academic institution in awarding credit nor does 
counsel submit evidence to demonstrate that the California 
State Bar is accredited as an educational 
institution as opposed to a professional regulatory body that provides education as a secondary 
objective as a function of supporting its membership. The assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
As evidence of the beneficiary's possession of the equivalence of a U.S .. bachelor's degree, counsel 
cites several previously submitted evaluations of the beneficiary's education credentials. 
The first evaluation is from dated 
August 30, 2010, which concludes that the beneficiary's three-year Diploma from 
_ and her are equivalent to a Bachelor of Arts degree in Accounting 
from a U.S. college or university. evaluation states that the benefici(!!Y's studies 
included general coursework, as well as specialized courses in accounting 
and taxation. 
does not undertake a course-by-course analysis or otherwise explain how he reached the conclusion 
as to their cumulative equivalency in the United States, while ignoring the fact that the foregoing 
credentials - a three-diploma and . - do not include four years of study at a 
degree-granting institution, the standard length of a U.S. bacc~aureate degree. See Matter of Shah. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
Nor do the subject credentials meet the regulatory definition of a single "United States baccalaureate 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree" in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
A second evaluation, dated January 14, 2005, from 
claims that the combination of the beneficiary's Diploma from 
is eauivalent to a U.S. Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from a U.S. 
college or university. also notes that the beneficiary's Diploma involved general 
courses as well as specialized . studies in Accounting and Taxation. The evaluation states that the 
"offers programs comparable to bachelor's programs at universities in the United Kingdom 
and the United States," but provides no support for 
this assertion. simply states that 
the evaluation of the U.S. equivalency of the beneficiary's credential is based on "the reputation of 
the number of years of coursework, the nature of the coursework, the grades 
attained in the courses, and the hours of academic coursework, as ·well as the qualification for 
Affiliate Membership in " The evaluation does not discuss how long the beneficiary 
studied at before her final examination. In particular, it does not confirm that the program 
comprised four academic years, the standard length of a bachelor's degree program in the United 
States. See Matter of Shah. Thus, even if the . Were a degree-granting institution, the 
evaluation provides no basis to conclude that the beneficiary's affiliate membership would be 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
A third evaluation. dated December 20, 2010, . is from Professor. 
states that membership in "is generally classified as an 
academic degree by educational authorities in the United States." concludes that the 
beneficiary's three-year Diploma is equivalent to three years of U.S. university study, notin2: like the 
other reviewers that -the beneficiary completed general · and specialized coursework. 
notes that further education is required for and concludes, with no course-by­
course analysis, that the reauired courses are equivalent to U.S. university study. also 
notes that membership in is accepted by the state boards of accountancv of most U.S. states. 
The AAO does not agree with the conclusion that acceptance of as an equivalent 
to a U.S. bachelor's degree means that the membership is in and of itself an educational degree. In 
addition, the acceptance of some state boards of accountin~ of the· as a basis for qualification 
for licensing in the state does not indicate that the is an educational degree. 
evaluation does not address the fact that the beneficiary's credentials -
a three-year Diploma 
and - do not include four years of study at a degree-granting institution, the 
standard length of a U.S. baccalaureate degree. See Matter of Shah_ Nor do the subject credentials 
meet the regulatory definition of a single "U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree" 
in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
A fourth evaluation dated December 21, 2010, from 
concludes that is a "degree" under the dictionary definition of the word. 
Specifically, he cites the Merriam Webster definition of "degree," Which is "a title conferred on 
students by a college, universitv. or professional school on completion of a program of study." 
acknowledges that the program is not a college or university, but instead classifies it 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
as a "professional school." He does not offer an explanation how an organization dedicated to the 
regulation of a profession, such as , could be deemed an education institution under any 
moniker nor does he analyze the requirement that anv sort of educational institution be accredited. 
notes that EDGE deems as equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree 
and that the beneficiary "completed advanced bachelor's-level studies and examinations in the 
academic field of Accounting" in pursuit of the specifically 
analyzed the courses taken by the beneficiary in the program and concluded that 
·since the nine courses were equivalent to university level courses. at U.S. universities that the 
membership awarded was the same as a degree awarded by a U.S. university. He does not explain 
how a professional regulatory body can be considered a degree-granting institution ·under the 
regulations. 
Evaluations of a person's foreign education by credentials evaluation organizations are utilized by 
USCIS as advisory opinions only. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it or may give it less weight. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988); see also Matter ofSea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
817 (Comm. 1988). Based on the foregoing discussion, the AAO determines that the evaluations 
submitted have little probative value. They are not persuasive evidence that the beneficiary's 
credentials - in particular, her three-year diploma and her - are either 
individually, collectively, or in any combination equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
For-all of the reasons ·discussed in this decision, the AAO concludes that the beneficiary does not 
have a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate degree within the meaning of 8 C.P.R. . 
§ 204.5(k)(2). Therefore, she is not eligible for classification as an advanced degree professional 
under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the petition cannot be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has also failed to establish that the beneficiary has the 
experience required by the terms of the labor certification. To be eligible for approval as an advanced 
degree professional, the beneficiary must have all the education, training, and experience specified on 
the labor certification as of the petition's priority date. See Matter of Wing's Tea House at 158. 
Relying in part on Madany, 696 F.2d at 1008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
(Ninth Circuit) stated: 
[I]t appears that the DOL is responsible only for determining the availability of 
suitable American workers for a job and the impact of alien employment upon the 
domestic labor market. It does not appear that the DOL's role extends to 
determining if the alien is qualified for the job for which he seeks sixth preference 
[visa category] status. That determination appears to be delegated to the INS under 
section 204{b), 8.U.S.C. § 1154(b), as one of the determinations incident to the INS's 
decision whether the alien is entitled to sixth preference status. 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
K.R.K.frvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1983). The court relied on an amicus brief 
from DOL that stated the following: 
The labor certification made by the Secretary of Labor . .. pursuant to section 
212(a)[(5)] of the ... [Act] ... is binding as to the findings of whether there are able, 
willing, qualified, and available United States workers 
for the job offered to the alien, 
and whether employment of the alien under the terms set by the employer would 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed United 
States workers. The labor certification in no way indicates that the alien offered the 
certified job opportunity is qualified (or not qualified) to perform the duties of that 
job. 
(Emphasis added.) /d. at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citing K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006, revisited 
this issue, stating: "The INS, therefore, may make a de novo determination of whether the alien is in 
fact qualified to fill the certified job offer." Tongatapu, 736 F. 2d at 1309. 
The key to determining the job qualifications is found in ETA Form 9089, Part H. This part of the 
application describes the terms and conditions of the job offered. It is important that the application 
be read as a whole. 
When determining whether a beneficiary is eligible for a preference immigrant visa, USCIS may not 
ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional requirements. See Madany v. 
Smith, 696 F.2d at 1015. USCIS must examine "the language of the labor certification job 
requirements" in order to determine what the job requires. /d. The only rational manner by which 
USCIS can be expected to interpret the meaning of terms used to describe the requirements of a job 
in a labor certification is to examine the certified job offer exactly as it is completed by the 
prospective employer. See Rosedale Linden Park Company v. Smith, 595 F. Supp. 829, 833 (D.D.C. 
1984) (emphasis added). USCIS's interpretation of the job's requirements, as stated on the labor 
certification, must involve reading and applying the plain language of the alien employment 
certification application form . /d. at 834. USCIS cannot and should not reasonably be expected to 
look beyond the plain language of the labor certification that the DOL has formally issued or 
otherwise attempt to divine the employer's intentions through some sort of reverse engineering of 
the labor certification. 
In addition to the Bachelor's degree in Accounting, Economics, Finance, Financial Management 
Financial IT; or Commerce discussed above, Part H requires 72 months of experience as a Manager, 
Internal Audit & Compliance or the alternate occupations of Accounting/ Admin Manager, Finance 
Manager, Senior Associate or related. Part H provided an alternate combination of education and 
experience of a Master's degree plus four years of relevant experience. · 
In Box 14 of the ETA Form 9089 (Specific skills or other requirements), the petitioner stated the 
following specific skills required for the position: 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
Must be a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) or Certified Internal Auditor (CIA); 
Must have minimum 2 years recent SOX and audit management experience with 
domestic and international operations, Proficiency with Conformus, or Big 4 Public 
Accounting Specialized Audit Software; Knowledge .of U.S. GAAP; Functional 
understanding of Oracle ERP; Willing to travel internationally up to 30%. 
Box 14 of the Form ETA 9089 also specified that the petitioner would "accept any suitable 
combination of training, education or experience." 
The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary has a U.S. master's degree or a foreign eauivalent 
del!fee. With resoect to the beneficiarv's exoerience, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
stating that the beneficiary worked as a S~nior 
Associate from April 10 ?_OO'i to AnP1J~t 2'i._2007 ~nd a letter from stating that the 
beneficiary worked at as a Senior Associate from July 2, 2003 to 
January 23, 2005 and as an associate from January 2, 2001 to July 1, 2003. Although the total 
experience claime~ by these letters exceeds the 72 months required by the terms of the labor 
certification, the letter from does not meet the regulatory requirements in that it is 
not written by an employer. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(g)(l) and (1)(3)(ii)(A). states that 
he was not employed by at the time he authored the letter. In addition, 
the experience listed states that the beneficiary worked as an associate for 18 months of the six and a 
half years of experience claimed. However, the position of associate was not listed as an approved 
alternate profession on Part H of the labor certification and, thus, time spent in that profession may 
not be considered towards the total amount of experience. 
In addition to the deficiency in the amount of experience possessed by the beneficiary as of the 
priority date, we note that Part H Box 14 requires a CPA or CIA certification. The petitioner 
submitted no evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses either of these titles. Nor did 
the evidence submitted demonstrate that the beneficiary had· the required two years of experience 
with Conformus, or Big 4 Public Accounting Specialized Audit Software as required by Part H. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here,· 
that burden has not been met. · · 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.