dismissed EB-2 Case: Chemistry

identieing Cat2 ii:icted to 
prevent cieaiy ur;wax;t.?ted 
invasion of personal privacq 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
LIN 07 073 5 1850 
PETITION: 
 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. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
U 
?John F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a pharmaceutical research and development firm. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
permanently in the United States as a senior chemist pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(2). As required by statute, an ETA Form 9089 
Application for Alien Employment Certification approved by the 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 alien employment certification. 
Specifically, the director determined that the beneficiary did not possess a U.S. Master's Degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree. 
On appeal, counsel asserted that the director erred in focusing on the number of years required to 
obtain the foreign equivalence of a U.S. Master's degree. Counsel provided examples of U.S. 
programs where a baccalaureate and Master's degree can be obtained in less than six years. 
On October 14, 2008, this office advised the petitioner of adverse information that had been 
incorporated into the record of proceedings. The petitioner submitted a response. 
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. 4 204.5(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." Id. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Science from Nagarjuna 
-. 
university and his Master of Science in Chemistry and ~kclear Chemistry from Andhra University. 
The petitioner also submitted an evaluation from - of Morningside Evaluations 
and 'Consulting asserting that the beneficiary's baccalaureate coursework fulfilled requirements 
"substantially similar to those required toward the completion of a degree" in the United States and 
that his Master of Science degree is "the equivalent of a Master of Science degree in Chemistry from 
an accredited institution of higher learning in he United States." As stated in our October 14, 2008 
notice, lists four references but does not provide copies of relevant pages from these 
references supporting his conclusion. 
 We also advised that we were unable to confirm Dr. 
claimed professional membership. In response, counsel states that is 
attempting to resolve this issue. 
Eligibility for the Classification Sought 
As noted above, the ETA Form 9089 in this matter is certified by DOL. DOL's role is limited to 
determining whether there are sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified and available and 
Page 3 
whether the employment of the alien will adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers 
in the United States similarly employed. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. fj 656.1(a). 
It is significant that none of the above inquiries assigned to 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 AAO is bound by the Act, agency regulations, precedent decisions of the agency and published 
decisions from the circuit court of appeals from whatever circuit that the action arose. See N.L.R.B. 
v. Ashkenazy Property Management Corp., 817 F.2d 74, 75 (9th Cir. 1987) (administrative agencies 
are not free to rehse to follow precedent in cases originating within the circuit); R.L. Inv. Ltd. 
Partners v. INS, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1022 (D. Haw. 2000), afld 273 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2001) 
(unpublished agency decisions and agency legal memoranda are not binding under the APA, even 
when they are published in private publications or widely circulated). Even CIS internal memoranda 
do not establish judicially enforceable rights. See Lou-Herrera v. Trominski, 23 1 F.3d 984, 989 (5th 
Cir. 2000) (an agency's internal guidelines "neither confer upon [plaintiffs] substantive rights nor 
provide procedures upon which [they] may rely.") 
A United States baccalaureate degree is generally found to require four years of education. Matter 
of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg. Comm. 1977). This decision involved a petition filed under 
8 U.S.C. $1 153(a)(3) as amended in 1976. At that time, this section provided: 
Visas shall next be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are members of 
the professions . . . . 
The Act added section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $1 153(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 . . . . 
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 degrees, 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, 10ISt Cong., 2nd Sess. 1990, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6784, 1990 
WL 201613 at "6786 (October 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 alien "must have a bachelor's degree" when considering equivalency for second 
preference 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 
29, 1991) (an alien must have at least a bachelor's degree). 
In 1991, when the final rule for 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5 was published in the Federal Register, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (the Service), 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. After reviewing section 12 1 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 holding an advanced degree with 
anything less than a full baccalaureate degree. More specifically, a three-year bachelor's degree will 
not be considered to be the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree. 
Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. at 245. Where the analysis of the beneficiary's credentials relies on 
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."' 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. 
8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(k)(2). As explained in the preamble to the final rule, persons who claim to qualify 
for an immigrant visa by virtue of education or experience equating to a bachelor's degree may 
qualify for a visa pursuant to section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act as a skilled worker with more than 
two years of training and experience. 56 Fed. Reg. at 60900. 
1 
Compare 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(defining for purposes of a nonirnrnigrant 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. 
For this classification, advanced degree professional, 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." For classification as a member of the 
professions, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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." We 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. 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). 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, certzficate or similar award from a 
college, university, school or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability"). 
In our notice, we advised that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use 
as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony but that such opinions are not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Commr. 1988); see also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
We further advised the petitioner that we had reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education 
(EDGE) created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO), providing background information on this group, the creation of EDGE and the peer- 
reviewed process used in determining placement recommendations. As stated in our notice, EDGE 
provides that an Indian Master's degree following a three-year bachelor's degree "represents the 
attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States." 
In addition, we noted that we had also reviewed two publications on Indian education published as 
part of AACRAO's Project for International Education Research (PIER). A P.I.E.R. Workshop 
Report on South Asia: The Admission and Placement of Students from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan 
and Sri Lanka 180 (1986) provides that "transfer credits should be considered on a year-by-year 
basis starting with post-Grade 12 year." The following chart states that 12 years of primary and 
secondary education followed by a three-year baccalaureate "may be considered for undergraduate 
admission with possible advanced standing up to three years (w semester credits) to be 
determined through a course to course analysis." (Emphasis in original.) We noted that the first 
degree placement recommendations provided in the 1986 PIER publication were adopted in the 
P.I.E.R World Education Series India: A Special Report on the Higher Education System and Guide 
to the Academic Placement of Students in Educational Institutions in the United States 43 (1997). 
As with EDGE, these publications represent conclusions vetted by a team of experts rather than the 
opinion of an individual. 
The petitioner's response included new evaluations from 
chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 
 of Career 
Consulting International and - of Marquess Educational Consultants. The evidence 
submitted to support these two evaluations includes two conventions, neither of which addresses the 
equivalence of Indian degrees, the non-juried opinions of others, and evidence of accelerated 
programs elsewhere, 
 ot address the equivalency of the beneficiary's particular 
education. Significantly, that the beneficiary's baccalaureate 
education represents 120 semester credit hours. does not explain how he reached this 
conclusion oiher than to discuss "Carnegie Units."-, who a~s~~ur~orts to use "Camegie 
Units," assigns 6.7 credits to each of the beneficiary's under aduate classes. This information does 
not appear on the beneficiary's transcript. While and reference other 
websites for information about "Camegie Units," the record contains no evidence that this unit is a 
useful way to evaluate Indian undergraduate  degree^.^ 
cites two non-precedent decisions from this office. While 8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(c) provides 
that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all CIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. The AAO is not required to approve applications or 
petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may 
have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 
(Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged 
errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), 
cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
As stated in our previous notice, A P.I.E.R. Workshop Report on South Asia: The Admission and 
Placement of Students .from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka I80 (1986) provides that 
"transfer credits should be considered on a year-by-year basis starting with post-Grade 12 year." 
The following chart states that 12 years of 
 aid secondary education followed by a three-year 
baccalaureate "may be considered for undergraduate admission with possible advanced standing up 
to three years (0-90 semester credits) to be, determined through a course to course analysis." 
(Emphasis in original.) This information, provided to the petitioner in our October 14, 2008 notice, 
directly contradicts the new evaluations provided by and- 
'- indicates that she has a Master's degree from the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology and a 
doctorate from Ecole Superieure Robert de Sorbon but does not indicate the field in which she obtained her 
doctorate. According to its website, www.sorbon.ti-/indexl.html (accessed November 19, 2008), Ecole 
Su erieure Robert de Sorbon awards degrees based on past experience. 
3h indicates he has a Doctor of Divinity but does not indicate the school where he obtained this 
degree. He indicates that he is president of the European-American University. According to the university's 
website, www.thedenree.ordapel.htm1 (accessed November 19,2008)' it awards degrees based on experience. 
4 
 According to the Camegie Foundation's own website, http://www.carnegiefoundation.or,g/general/ 
sub.asp?key=l7&subkev=l874&topkev=17 (accessed November 19,2008)' the Camegie Unit represents 
120 high school hours in one subject. Fourteen "units" warrant admission to college. The website concludes: 
"The 'Camegie Unit' does not apply to higher education." 
The evaluations of and 
 are also contradicted by the other new evaluation 
submitted in response to our previous notice. Specifically, 
 asserts that the beneficiary 
completed 96 undergraduate credits, far more consistent with the PIER materials quoted above. It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
provides a detailed discussion explaining her conclusion that the beneficiary's Master's 
Degree is equivalent to a U.S. Master's Degree. Specifically, she provides an analysis of the level of 
courses the beneficiary took as part of his post-baccalaureate education and asserts that he completed 
a project similar to a Master's thesis, although this assertion is not supported by his transcript."r. 
asserts that it is the "prevailing view" and "widely held" that an Indian Master's Degree is 
equivalent to a U.S. Master's Degree. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Mutter o So xi. 22 
I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Mutter of Treasure Crufi of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). fR 
assertions lack support. - does not list any sources used for her evaluation. It can be 
assumed that if it is indeed the "prevailing view" that an Indian Master's Degree is equivalent to a 
U.S. Master's Degree, that equivalency would appear in a peer-reviewed publication discussing the 
Indian education system. The record contains no such evidence. Rather, the petitioner relies on two 
conventions calling for the recognition of comparable degrees. For example, the petitioner 
submitted 138 pages of UNESCO materials, only two of which are relevant. The recommendation 
provided relates to "recognition" of qualifications awarded in higher education. Paragraph l(e) 
defines recognition as follows: 
'Recognition" of a foreign qualification in higher education means its acceptance by 
the competent authorities of the State concerned (whether they be governmental or 
nongovernmental) as entitling its holder to be considered under the same conditions 
as those holding a comparable qualification awarded in that State an deemed 
comparable, for the purposes of access to or further pursuit of higher education 
studies, participation in research, the practice of a profession, if this does not require 
the passing of examinations or further special preparation, or all the foregoing, 
according to the scope of the recognition. 
The UNESCO recommendation relates to admission to graduate school and training programs and 
eligibility to practice in a profession. Nowhere does it suggest that a three-year degree must be 
deemed equivalent to a four-year degree for purposes of qualifying for a class of individuals defined 
by statute and regulation as eligible for immigration benefits. More significantly, the 
recommendation does not define "comparable qualification." At the heart of this matter is whether 
the beneficiary's post-secondary education is, in fact, the foreign equivalent of a U.S. Master's 
Degree. The UNESCO recommendation does not address this issue. 
5 
 The beneficiary's transcript shows that several of his courses involved written papers, but there is no 
evidence one of these papers was equivalent to a U.S. Master's thesis. 
Page 8 
In response to our October 14, 2008 notice, counsel asserts that AACRAO is not approved or 
accredited by a U.S. government agency and provides only voluntary guidelines. Thus, counsel 
asserts that AACRAO standards should not "replace expert opinion." Counsel then asserts that the 
PIER materials prepared by AACRAO are "fundamentally flawed." Counsel reaches this conclusion 
by noting that while a student in the United States can obtain both a baccalaureate and a Master's 
Degree in five years, the PIER materials equate the same number of years of education in India as 
less than a Master's Degree. The existence of accelerated Master's Degree programs in the United 
States, however, which allow students to complete the degree in less than two years, does not imply 
that a foreign program consisting of a three-year degree baccalaureate and a two-year Master's 
Degree is necessarily equivalent to a four-year baccalaureate and a one-year accelerated Master's 
Degree in the United States. 
We acknowledge that AACRAO is just one organization. That said, AACRAO has published peer- 
reviewed placement recommendations that contradict the evaluations in the record, which, in fact, 
contradict each other. As stated above, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile 
such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. The petitioner was offered 
an opportunity to provide independent objective evidence to rebut the inconsistencies between the 
AACRAO materials and the evaluations of record. Instead, the petitioner provides new evaluations 
that are not consistent with each other. These new evaluations cannot overcome the inconsistencies 
cited in our previous notice. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's education is equivalent 
to more than a U.S. baccalaureate. We acknowledge that the beneficiary has documented more than 
five years of post-baccalaureate experience. Thus, he qualifies for the classification sought. That 
said, he must still meet the job requirements certified by the Department of Labor. 
Qualifications for the Job Offered 
Relying in part on Madany, 696 F.2d at 1008, the U.S. Federal 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 
status. That determination appears to be delegated to the INS under section 204(b), 
8 U.S.C. fj 1154(b), as one of the determinations incident to the INS'S decision 
whether the alien is entitled to sixth preference status. 
K.R.K. Irvine, 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 certzj?cation in no way indicates that the alien offered the 
certzfied job opportunity is qualzjied (or not qualzjied) to perform the duties of that 
job. 
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citing K.R.K. Iwine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006, revisited 
this issue, stating: 
The Department of Labor ("DOL") must certify that insufficient domestic workers 
are available to perform the job and that the alien's performance of the job will not 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed domestic 
workers. Id. fj 212(a)[(5)], 8 U.S.C. fj 1182(a)[(5)]. 
 The INS then makes its own 
determination of the alien's entitlement to sixth preference status. Id. fj 204(b), 
8 U.S.C. fj 1154(b). See generally K.R.K. Iwine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 
1008 9th Cir.1983). 
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 on ETA Form 9089 Part H. This section of 
the application for alien labor certification, "Job Opportunity Information," describes the terms and 
conditions of the job offered. It is important that the ETA Form 9089 be read as a whole. 
Moreover, when determining whether a beneficiary is eligible for a preference immigrant visa, CIS 
may not ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional requirements. See 
Madany, 696 F.2d at 1015. CIS must examine "the language of the labor certification job 
requirements" in order to determine what the job requires. Id. The only rational manner by which 
CIS 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). CIS'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. See id. at 834. CIS cannot and should not reasonably be expected to 
look beyond the plain language of the labor certification that DOL has formally issued or otherwise 
attempt to divine the employer's intentions through some sort of reverse engineering of the labor 
certification. 
On the ETA Form 9089, Part H, the petitioner indicated that a Master's degree in Pharmaceutical 
Science and Chemistry plus 12 months of experience is required for the job. Although lines 8-A 
through 8-C allow the petitioner to specify an alternate combination of education and experience that 
might be acceptable, the petitioner expressly indicated that no such combination was acceptable. 
The petitioner did indicate that a foreign educational equivalent is acceptable. Thus, regardless of 
whether the beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary has a Master's degree in one of the requisite fields 
or a foreign educational equivalent. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's education 
constitutes a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. Master's Degree in Pharmaceutical Science or 
Chemistry. Thus, the beneficiary does not meet the job requirements certified by DOL. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 4 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.