dismissed EB-2 Case: Computer Software

(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 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: AUG 2 6 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: 
INSTRUCfiONS: 
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:ljwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103:5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
dwc -(t~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis~gov 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 describes itself as a computer software and hardware development company. It seeks 
to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as an 
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 May 14, 2012.2 
Part H of the labor certification states that the offered position has the following minimum 
requirements: 
H.4. Education: Bachelor's degree in Accounting, Finance, MIS, or related field. 
H.5. Training: None required. 
H.6. Experience in the job offered: 60 months. 
H.7. Alternate field of study: None accepted. 
H.8. Alternate combination of education and experience: None accepted. 
H.9. Foreign educational equivalent: Accepted. 
H.lO. Experience in an alternate occupation: Any related occupation. 
H.14. Specific skills or other requirements: Must have professional experience with: SAP project 
leadership; full life cycle of SAP Finance Controlling and contract accounting project 
implementation; leading finances and system implementation projects; finance business 
process integration experience. 
*Professional experience must be post-baccalaureate progressive in nature. 
Part J of the labor certification states that the beneficiary's highest level of education related to the 
offered position is a Bachelor's degree from the · 
completed in 2002. 
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-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
The record of proceeding contains a copy of the beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of 
diploma and transcripts from the . The record also contains a certificate of 
membership and a final examination certificate from 
The record also contains an evaluation of the beneficiary's credentials prepared by 
',on October 
1, 2012. Dr. concludes that the beneficiary's membership in is a single-source foreign 
equivalent to a four-year Bachelor's degree in Accounting. Dr. notes that the Electronic 
Database for Global Education (EDGE) created by the American Association of Collegiate 
Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) states that membership in the is comparable to 
a bachelor's degree in the United States. EDGE and AACRAO are discussed in further detail below. 
The record contains an evaluation of the beneficiary's credentials prepared by 
B.A., J.D., M.B.A., ' on dated August, 22, 2012. Mr. 
concludes that the completion of the final examination program is the "equivalent of a four-
year Bachelor of Science Degree in Accounting from an accredited college or university in the 
United States based on the single source of the Final Examination program." 
Part K of the labor certification states that the beneficiary possesses the following employment 
experience: 
• Managing Consultant with 
November 4, 2011. 
• Lead Consultant with 
until February 11, 2011. 
from February 14, 2011 until 
. from August 17, 2005 
The record contains an experience letter from _ _ _ on 
letterhead stating that the company employed the beneficiary as a Lead Consultant from 
August 17, 2005 until February 11, 2011. · 
The record contains no other 
experience letters for the beneficiary. 
The director's decision denying the petition stated that although EDGE recognizes the completion of 
the final examination as comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States, it is not the 
equivalent of a degree awarded by the college or university. The director stated that "For the 
requested classification of advance degree professional, the regulation at 8 C.P.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." The director also stated: 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
Finally, the director noted that an AAO decision cited by the petitioner is a non-precedent decision 
and is non-binding. 
On appeal, the petitioner, through counsel, states that associate membership is a single-source 
degree awarded after a course of study similar in complexity to a course of study for which a U.S. 
institution would grant a degree. Counsel also states that associate membership is not a series of 
diplomas or certificates and that EDGE has determined that membership is equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree. Finally, counsel asserts that the director's denial was arbitrary and capricious 
because EDGE was referred to as the "go to source" for USCIS during the Nebraska Service Center 
Stakeholders' call on October 11, 2012. 
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? 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 
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: 
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. U.S. 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)(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). 
5 See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 
345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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.F.R. § 656, involve a determination as to whether the position and the alien are 
qualified for a specific immigrant 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 turn, 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 
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: 
6 Based on revisions to the Act, the current citation is section 212(a)(5)(A). 
(b)(6)Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[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 en~itled 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). 
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. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
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) of the 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 
mustbe 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 f~rm 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 
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 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
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
51 
Cong., 2"d 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.P.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, USCIS 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 
have a single degree that is a "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree. 
See 8 C.F.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 
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-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
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 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 APWU v. 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 
Thus, the plain meaning of the Act and the regulations is that the beneficiary of an advanced degree 
professional petition must possess, at a minimum, a degree from a college or university that is a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree. 
In the instant case, the petitioner relies on the beneficiary's 
Membership as being equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
Final Exam and Associate 
As is noted above, the record contains an evaluation of the beneficiary's educational credentials 
prepared by . 
on October 1, 2012, which concludes that membership in the is comparable to a 
bachelor's degree in the United States.9 The record also contains an evaluation of the beneficiary's 
educational credentials prepared by _ 
on dated August, 22, 2012 which concludes that completion of the final 
8 Compare 8 e.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"). 
9 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 (eommr. 1988). However, USeiS 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. USeiS may evaluate the content of the letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. users 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 of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Commr. 1972)); Matter of D-R-, 25 r&N Dec. 445 (BIA 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)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
examination program is the "equivalent of a four-year Bachelor of Science Degree in Accounting 
from an accredited college or university in the United States based on the single source of the Final 
Examination program." 
The AAO has reviewed the EDGE created by AACRAO. 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 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. Authors for EDGE must work 
with a publication consultant and a Council Liaison with AACRAO's National Council on the 
Evaluation of Foreign Educational Credentials.10 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.U 
According to EDGE, the beneficiary's Final Exam and Associate Membership from is 
awarded upon two years of study beyond the Intermediate Exam and upon passing t e 
Final Exam. 
EDGE concludes that the 
degree in the United States. 
Final Exam and Associate Membership is comparable to a bachelor's 
As is explained above, for classification as an advanced degree professional, the beneficiary must 
possess a foreign degree from a college or university that is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
While EDGE concludes that the beneficiary's Final Exam and Associate Membership is 
10 See An Author's Guide to Creating AACRAO International Publications available at 
http:/ /www.aacrao.org/Libraries/Publications _Documents/GUIDE_ TO_ CREATING _INTERNATIO 
NAL PUBLICATIONS l.sflb.ashx. 
11 In -Confluence Intern~tional, 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. 2010 WL 3325442 (E.D.Mich. August 20, 
2010), the court 
upheld a USCIS determination that the beneficiary'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 required a degree and did 
not allow for the combination of education and experience. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
"comparable to" a bachelor's degree in the United States, it is not a degree from a college or 
university. The is not an institution of higher education that can confer a degree.12 Therefore, 
the beneficiary possesses the "equivalent" of a bachelor's degree rather than a "foreign equivalent 
degree" within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 (Regl 
Comm'r. 1977).13 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. 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). 
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. 
The Minimum Requirements of the Offered Position 
The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary satisfied all of the educational, trammg, 
experience and any other requirements of the offered position by the priority date. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l), (12). See Matter of Wing'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, USCIS 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. 
12 See Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 11 (D. Ore. Nov. 30, 2006) 
(finding USCIS was justified in concluding that Institute of Chartered Accountants of India 
membership was not a college or university "degree" for purposes of classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree). 
13 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. !d. at 245. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
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]." /d. 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 the offered position requires a bachelor's degree in 
Accounting, Finance, MIS, or related field. 
For the reasons explained above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses a 
bachelor's degree in Accounting, Finance, MIS, or related field. 
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. 
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. 
Counsel suggests that the director's adjudication of the petition was arbitrary and capricious. The 
petitioner has not demonstrated any error by the director in conducting its review of the petition. 
Nor has the petitioner demonstrated any resultant prejudice such as would constitute a due process 
violation. See Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463, 1469-70 (9th Cir. 1986); Nicholas v. INS, 590 
F.2d 802, 809-10 (9th Cir. 1979); Martin-Mendoza v. INS, 499 F.2d 918, 922 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. 
denied, 419 U.S. 1113 (1975). 
Counsel also references minutes from an American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) 
teleconference 
liaison meeting with the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) Stakeholder Call on October 
11, 2012 that provides statements by the Service Center Director as to the use of EDGE as the "go to 
source" for the NSC. The information provided during the teleconference is not binding on the 
AAO. The AAO is bound by the Act, agency regulations, precedent decisions of the agency and 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
published decisions from the circuit court of appeals within the circuit where the action arose. See 
N.L.R.B. v. Askkenazy Property Management Corp. 817 F. 2d 74, 75 (91h Cir. 1987) (administrative 
agencies are not free to refuse 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), aff'd, 273 F.3d 874 (91h 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). 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.