dismissed EB-2 Case: Computer Science

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 2 9 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. DepartmentofHomeland Secm·ity 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administr ative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~«fo ~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a Software 
Developer, Applications . The petitioner requests classification of the beneficiary as an advanced 
degree professional pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
At issue in this case is whether the beneficiary possesses an advanced degree as required by the 
terms of the labor certification and the requested preference classification. 
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
As required by statute, the petition is accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, Application for 
Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification), approved by the U.S. Department of 
Labor (DOL). 1 The priority date of the petition is January 9, 2013.2 
Part H of the labor certification states that the offered position has the following m1mmum 
requirements: 
H.4. Education: Bachelor's degree in "Computer Science/Engineering or related field." 
H.5. Training: None required. 
H.6. Experience in the job offered : 60 months. 
H. 7. Alternate field of study: "A closely related field." 
H.8. Is there an alternate combination of education and experience that is acceptable? Yes. 
H.8-A. If Yes, specify the alternate level of education required: Master 's degree. 
H.8.C. If applicable, indicate the number ofyears experience acceptable in question 8: 0. 
H.9. Foreign educational equivalent : Accepted. 
H.l 0. Experience in an alternate occupation: None accepted. 
H.14. Specific skills or other requirements: Extensive travel on assignments to vanous 
unanticipated client sites within the U.S. is required. 
Part J of the labor certification states that the beneficiary possesses a Bachelor's degree in Computer 
Science and Business Administration from in Madurai, 
India, completed 
in 2005. The record contains a copy of the beneficiary 's Bachelor of Commerce degree and transcripts 
from in Madurai, India, issued in 2005. 
The record also contains the following evaluations of the beneficiary's educational credentials: 
1 See section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a)(5)(D) ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(a)(2). 
2 
The priority date is the date the DOL accepted the labor certification for processing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(d) . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page3 
• By for -J dated December 19, 2013, concluding 
that the beneficiary "has attained the equivalent of [a] Bachelor of Computer Science 
[degree] from a Regionally Accredited College of University in the United States." 
• By , Ph.D., for _ dated December 16, 2013, 
concluding that "[the beneficiary's] postsecondary studies are considered to have established 
a functional equivalency in our opinion to the degree of: Bachelor in Computer Science, 
representing 140 semester credit hours, from an institution of postsecondary education in the 
United States of America." 
• By for the dated September 28, 2011, relying 
on the beneficiary's post-secondary Program in Computer Science and Systems Management 
from the and his Bachelor of Commerce 
degree from Mr. concludes that, based upon this 
education, "[the beneficiary] attained the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science Degree, with a 
dual major in Computer Science and Business Administration, from an accredited US college 
or university." 
• By dated July 10, 2007, concluding that the beneficiary's three-
year bachelor's degree "represents a single-source degree which is the equivalent of a 
bachelor's degree in the United States system." 
The director's decision denying the petition states that the beneficiary does not have a single degree 
that is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, and therefore, he does not meet the 
education requirements of the ETA Form 9089 and the requirements for classification as an 
advanced degree professional. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the evaluations in the record demonstrate that the beneficiary 
possesses the U.S. equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science. 
The petitioner's appeal is properly filed and makes a specific allegation of error in law or fact. The 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. 3 The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in 
the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal.4 A petition that fails to comply 
with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO even if the director does not 
identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. 5 
3 See 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the 
powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice 
or by rule."); see also Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). 
The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
4 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to Form I-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, which are incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l). 
The record in the instant case provides no reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents 
newly submitted on appeal. See Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
5 See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
The Roles of the DOL and USCIS in the Immigrant Visa Process 
At the outset, it is important to discuss the respective roles of the DOL and U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) in the employment-based immigrant visa process. As noted above, the 
labor certification in this matter is certified by the DOL. The DOL's role in this process is set forth at 
section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, which provides: 
Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or 
unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and 
certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that-
(I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally 
qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time 
of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place 
where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and 
(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed. 
It is significant that none of the above inquiries assigned to the DOL, or the regulations implementing 
these duties under 20 C.P.R. § 656, involve a determination as to whether the position and the alien are 
qualified for a specific inimigrant classification. This fact has not gone unnoticed by federal circuit 
courts: 
There is no doubt that the authority to make preference classification decisions rests 
with INS. The language of section 204 cannot be read otherwise. See Castaneda­
Gonzalez v
. INS, 564 F.2d 417, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In tum , DOL has the authority 
to make the two determinations listed in section 212(a)(14). 6 Id. at 423. The 
necessary result of these two grants of authority is that section 212(a)(14) 
determinations are not subject to review by INS absent fraud or willful 
misrepresentation , but all matters relating to preference classification eligibility not 
expressly delegated to DOL remain within INS ' authority. 
Given the language of the Act, the totality of the legislative history , and the agencies' 
own interpretations of their duties under the Act, we must conclude that Congress did 
not intend DOL to have primary authority to make any determinations other than the 
345 F.3d 683 (91h Cir. 2003). 
6 Based on revisions to the Act , the current citation is section 212(a)(5)(A). 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
two stated in section 212(a)(14). If DOL is to analyze alien qualifications, it is for 
the purpose of "matching" them with those of corresponding United States workers so 
that it will then be "in a position to meet the requirement of the law ," namely the 
section 212(a)(14) determinations. 
Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Relying in part on Madany, 696 F.2d 
at 1008, the 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. 
§ 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 the DOL that stated the following: 
The labor certification made by the Secretary of Labor . . . pursuant to section 
212(a)(14) 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 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. !d. § 212(a)(14) , 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14). The INS then makes its own 
determination of the alien's entitlement to sixth preference status. !d. § 204(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). See generally K.R.K. Irvine, 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 Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F. 2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Therefore, it is the DOL's responsibility to determine whether there are qualified U.S. workers 
available to perform the offered position, and whether the employment of the beneficiary will 
adversely affect similarly employed U.S. workers. It is the responsibility of USCIS to determine if 
the beneficiary qualifies for the offered position, and whether the offered position and the 
beneficiary are eligible for the requested employment-based immigrant visa classification. 
Eligibility for the Classification Sought 
Section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), provides immigrant classification to members of 
the professions holding advanced degrees. See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines the terms "advanced degree" and "profession." An 
"advanced degree" is defined as: 
[A]ny United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of baccalaureate. 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. 
A "profession" is defined as "one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) ofthe Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation." The occupations listed at section 101(a)(32) of 
the Act are "architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i) states that a petition for an advanced degree professional 
must be accompanied by: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree; or 
(B) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of 
letters from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least five 
years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
In addition, the job offer portion of the labor certification must require a professional holding an 
advanced degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(i). 
Therefore, an advanced degree professional petition must establish that the beneficiary is a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree, and that the offered position requires, at a minimum, a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
professional holding an advanced degree. Further, an "advanced degree" is a U.S. academic or 
professional degree (or a foreign equivalent degree) above a baccalaureate, or a U.S. baccalaureate (or a 
foreign equivalent degree) followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 
When the beneficiary relies on a bachelor's degree (and five years of progressive experience) for 
qualification as an advanced degree professional, the degree must be a single U.S. bachelor's (or foreign 
equivalent) degree. 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, 
101
5
t Cong., 2nd Sess. 1990, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6784, 1990 WL 201613 at 6786 (Oct. 26, 1990). 
In 1991, when the final rule for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 was published in the Federal Register, the legacy 
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. 
After 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). 
In Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006), the court held 
that, in professional and advanced degree professional cases, where the beneficiary is statutorily 
required to hold at least a baccalaureate degree, users properly concluded that a single foreign degree 
or its equivalent is required. 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." 7 In order to have experience and 
education equating to an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, the beneficiary must 
7 Compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) (defining for purposes of H-1B 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 8 
have a single degree that is the "foreign equivalent degree" of a United States baccalaureate degree. 
See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2) . 
The beneficiary 's degree must also be from a college or university. The regulation at 8 C .P.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requires the submission of an "official academic record showing that the 
beneficiary has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree." For 
classification as a member of the professions, the regulation at 8 C.P.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 a beneficiary is an advanced degree professional is any less than the 
evidence required to show that the beneficiary 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 APWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 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, 30706 (July 5, 
1991).8 
In addition, a three-year bachelor's degree will generally not be considered to be the "foreign 
equivalent " of a United States baccalaureate degree. See Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l. 
Comrn'r. 1977).9 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act No. 06-2158 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2008) (for 
professional classification, USCIS regulations require the beneficiary to possess a single four-year U.S. 
bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree); see also Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. v. USCIS, 2010 
WL 3325442 (E.D.Mich. August 20, 2010) (the beneficiary's three-year bachelor's degree was not the 
foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree). 
In the instant case, the petitioner relies on the beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Commerce degree 
India as being equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
8 Compare 8 C.P.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"). 
9 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. Id. at 245. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
As noted above, the record contains evaluations ofthe beneficiary's educational credentials pre ared 
hv for Ph.D., for 
for the ; and Professor 10 
The evaluation by Ms. refers to the beneficiary's Bachelor of Commerce degree from 
and states that he "has attained the equivalent of [a] Bachelor of 
Computer Science [degree] from a Regionally Accredited College of University in the United 
States." However, a review of the beneficiary's transcripts from 
demonstrates that the beneficiary did not take any computer courses. It is unclear how Ms. 
reaches the conclusion that the beneficiary has obtained a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science. 
Additionally, it is unclear how Ms. calculated the beneficiary's coursework to be equivalent 
to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
The evaluation by Dr. states that "[the beneficiary's] postsecondary studies are considered to 
have established a functional equivalency in our opinion to the degree of: Bachelor in Computer 
Science, representing 140 semester credit hours, from an institution of postsecondary education in 
the United States of America." 
This evaluation Dr. also states the following on page six: 
... It is our case that the measurement of 1,800 clock hours constitutes the minimum 
requirement to earn a bachelor's degree in the United States. 
The evaluation states the following on page three: 
... Evidence indicates that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the number of 
contact hours in an Indian 3 yr bachelor's degree exceeds 1800. This is supported 
further by references below in which it is shown that collegiate instruction in India is 
markedly more 
intensive than comparable instruction in the U.S. On this basis, we 
can confidently say that an Indian three 
year bachelor's degree likely contains in 
excess of 1800 contact hours, just as we can say of a generic U.S. bachelor's degree 
10 users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCrS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien 's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility. users may evaluate the content of the letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, 
in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. !d. at 795. See also Matter ofSoffici, 
22 r&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 r&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Commr. 1972)); Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BrA 2011) (expert witness testimony 
may be given different weight depending on the extent of the expert's qualifications or the relevance, 
reliability, and probative value of the testimony). 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
that it likely contains the same. Our decision is therefore to adopt the figure of 1800 
as representing a sensible minimum of contact hours absent evidence to the contrary. 
This evaluation appears to conclude that the majority of three-year Indian degrees exceed 1800 
contact hours and therefore are the equivalent of a bachelor's degree from an accredited U.S. 
university. Dr. goes on at length about Carnegie Units and Indian degrees in general in his 
evaluation, concluding that the beneficiary's three-year degree is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate 
but makes no attempt to assign credits for individual courses. 
The Carnegie Unit was adopted by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in the 
early 1900s as a measure of the amount of classroom time that a high school student studied a 
subject.ll For example, 120 hours of classroom time was determined to be equal to one "unit" of 
high school credit, and 14 "units" were deemed to constitute the minimum amount of classroom time 
equivalent to four years of high school.12 This unit system was adopted at a time when high schools 
lacked uniformity in the courses they taught and the number of hours students spent in class. The 
Carnegie Unit does not apply to higher education. 13 
Additionally, the evaluation by Dr. _ indicates that the beneficiary 's post-secondary education 
is equivalent to a U.S. Bachelor of Computer Science degree, but he does not state specifically how 
the beneficiary's Bachelor of Commerce relates in any way to the field of Computer Science. 
The evaluation by Mr. for the relies on the beneficiary's post-
secondary program in Computer Science and Systems Management from the 
and his Bachelor of Commerce degree from 
He concludes that based upon this education "[the beneficiary] attained the equivalent of 
a Bachelor of Science Degree, with a dual major in Computer Science and Business Administration, 
from an accredited US college or universitv." The record does not contain any evidence of the 
beneficiary's post-secondary program from 
The evaluation by Professor dated July 10, 2007, concludes that the beneficiary's 
three-year bachelor's degree "represents a single-source degree which is the equivalent of a 
bachelor's degree in the United States system," but the evaluator feels all Indian degrees represent 
such an equivalency. 
The AAO has reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) created by the 
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). According to 
its website, AACRAO is "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more than 11,000 
ll The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was founded in 1905 as an 
independent policy and research center whose motivation is "improving teaching and learning." See 
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about-us/about-carnegie (accessed May 8, 2014). 
12 See http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/faqs (accessed May 8, 2014). 
13 See http://www.old.suny.edu/facu1tysenate/TheCarnegieUnit.pdf (accessed May 8, 2014). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
higher education admissions and registration professionals who represent more than 2,600 
institutions and agencies in the United States and in over 40 countries around the world." See 
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-based resource 
for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials." See http://edge.aacrao.org/info.php. USCIS 
considers EDGE to be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of information about foreign credentials 
equivalencies. 14 
According to EDGE, the beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Commerce degree is comparable 
to three years of university study in the United States. Therefore, based on the conclusions of 
EDGE, and due to the deficiencies in the evaluations discussed above, the evidence in the record on 
appeal is not sufficient to establish that the beneficiary possesses the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree. 
Although the record includes no evidence of the beneficiary's post-secondary program in Computer 
Science and Systems Management from the even if the record did contain such evidence, 
EDGE states that a post-secondary diploma, for which the entrance requirement is completion of 
secondary education, is comparable to one year of university study in the United States. EDGE does 
not suggest that a post-secondary diploma, if combined with a three-year degree, may be deemed a 
foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate. http://edge.aacrao.org/country/credential/post­
secondary-diploma?cid=single (accessed May 5, 2014). 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, it is concluded that the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary possessed at least a U.S. academic or professional degree (or a foreign 
equivalent degree) above a baccalaureate, or a U.S. baccalaureate (or a foreign equivalent degree) 
followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. Therefore, the beneficiary 
does not qualify for classification as an advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the 
Act. 
14 In Confluence International, 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 beneficiary'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. v. USCIS, 2010 WL 3325442 (E.D.Mich. 
August 20, 2010), 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 required a degree and did not allow for the combination of education and experience. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The Minimum Requirements of the Offered Position 
The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary satisfied all of the educational, training, 
experience and any other requirements of the offered position by the priority date. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l), (12). See Matter ofWing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977); 
see also Matter of Katigbak , 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971 ). 
In evaluating the job offer portion of the labor certification to determine the required qualifications 
for the position, US CIS may not ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional 
requirements. See Madany, 696 F.2d at 1008; K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006; Stewart Infra­
Red Commissary of Massachusetts , Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1981). 
Where the job requirements in a labor certification are not otherwise unambiguously prescribed, e.g., 
by regulation, USCIS must examine "the language of the labor certification job requirements" in 
order to determine what the petitioner must demonstrate about the beneficiary's qualifications. 
Madany, 696 F.2d at 1015. 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. " 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 [labor certification]." Id. at 834 (emphasis added). USCIS 
cannot and should not reasonably be expected to look beyond the plain language of the labor 
certification or otherwise attempt to divine the employer's intentions through some sort of reverse 
engineering of the labor certification. Even though the labor certification may be prepared with the 
beneficiary in mind, USCIS has an independent role in determining whether the beneficiary meets the 
labor certification requirements. See Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 *7 
(D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006). 
In the instant case, the labor certification states that he offered position requires a Bachelor's degree in 
"Compute ·r Science /Engineering or related field." 
For the reasons explained above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses a 
bachelor's degree as required by the terms of the labor certification. 
The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed the minimum requirements of the 
offered position set forth on the labor certification by the priority date. Accordingly, the petition must 
also be denied for this reason. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
Ability to Pay the Proffered Wage 
Beyond the decision of the director, 15 the petitioner has not provided evidence of its ability to pay the 
proffered wage as of the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent 
residence. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2).2012. The record contains the petitioner's 2012 tax retum, but 
this precedes the January 9, 2013 priority date. 
In determining the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage, USCIS first examines whether the 
petitioner has paid the beneficiary the full proffered wage each year from the priority date. If the 
petitioner has not paid the beneficiary the full proffered wage each year, users will next examine 
whether the petitioner had sufficient net income or net current assets to pay the difference between 
the wage paid, if any, and the proffered wage. 16 lfthe petitioner's net income or net current assets is 
not sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage, users may also 
consider the overall magnitude of the petitioner's business activities. See Matter of Sonegawa, 12 
I&N Dec. 612 (Reg 'l Comm ' r 1967). 
In any further filings, the petitioner must provide evidence of its ability to pay the proffered wage 
covering the period of time from the priority date onward. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In summary, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed an advanced degree as 
required by the terms of the labor certification and the requested preference classification. 
Therefore, the beneficiary does not qualify for classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree under section 203(b)(2) of the Act. The director's decision denying the petition 
is affirmed. 
Although not a basis for this decision, the petitioner must also establish its ability to pay the 
proffered wage as of the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent 
residence. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). The priority date of the instant petition is January 9, 2013, 
but the record does not contain any evidence of the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage in 
15 An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d I 025, 1043 (E. D. 
Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
16 See River Street Donuts, LLC v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2009); Elatos Restaurant Corp. 
v. Sava, 632 F. Supp. 1049, 1054 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 
736 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1984)); Chi-Feng Chang v. Thornburgh, 719 F. Supp. 532 (N.D. Texas 
1989); K. CP. Food Co. v. Sava, 623 F. Supp. I 080 (S.D.N. Y. 1985); Ubeda v. Palmer, 539 F. Supp. 
647 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff'd, 703 F.2d 571 (7th Cir. 1983); and Taco Especial v. Napolitano, 696 F. 
Supp . 2d 873 (E.D. Mich. 2010), affd, No. 10-1517 (6th Cir. filed Nov. 10, 2011). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 14 
2013. Therefore, in any additional filings, the petitioner must demonstrate its ability to pay the 
proffered wage to the beneficiary from January 2013 onward. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings , it is the petitioner' s burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOti ende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.