dismissed EB-2 Case: Financial Analysis

(b)(6)
DATE: 
NOV 2 I 2013 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
, Beneficiary: 
U.S, I)epartinent (Jf,.oiDelallcl ~e¢urity 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 205f9-2Q90 
u.s. Citizemhi . . . ...... -.......... p 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant .Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
. ])~gree or. an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
land Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § ll53(b )(2) " 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please .find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does n.ot a,.nnoun~e new consttV.ction.s of law not ~stabli~h agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
yout case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to recons1der or a 
IlJOtioll. tO rt!9Pe.Ii, respectively. Any motion. m.ust be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
with1n 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Forn1 1 .. 2_90-P instructions ~t 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, tiling lQcation, and other requirements~ 
See also 8 C.F.R.. § 103.5. Do not. tile a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
4£/{ .(0, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, A<lniill.isttative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center (the d~rector), denied the immigrant visa . 
petition and lthe.m(ltte;r is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner de~Grit>es itself as a software and business consulting flfin. It seeks to pefifianently 
employ the beneficiary .in the United States as a financial business analyst. The petitioner request§ 
classification of the beneficiary as an advanced degree professional purspant to section 203(b )(2) of 
the lmmigr(ltion and Nationality Act (the Act), 8. U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). · · 
At issue in this case is. whether the beneficilify .possesses an (ldv(lnced d_¢gree a.s requjred by the 
terms of the labor certification and the requested preference classification. 
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
A$. required by Statute, the petition is accompanied by an EtA Form 9089, Application for 
Permanent Employmen~ Certification (labor cei:tifi.catimi), a.pp;roved by the U.S, J)epa._rtinent of 
Labor (POL}. 1 The priority date of the petition is May 12, 2011. 2 
Patt H of the ·labor certification states that the offered position bas the fo1Iowi11g minim.\l_Il1 
requirements: 
H.4. Education: Master's degree in financial Mamtgement, MIS, Math, Computer Seie.nce or 
:t;:ngineering. -
H.S. Trairiing: None requited. 
H.6. Experience in the job offered: 12 months. 
H. 7. Alternl!te field of st_1,1dy: None accepted, · 
H.8. Alternate combination of education and experience: None accepted. 
H:9. . Foreign educational equivalent: Accepteq. 
H.10. Experience iQ a.n alternate occupation: None accepted. 
f.l.\4. SpeCific skills or other requirements: All candidates should possess a master's degree in 
Financial MaJ.tagenieiit, MIS, Math, Computer Science or Engineering and at least one year 
experience ill· the job offered due to theoretical and computationai comple -xities i11volved in 'the job 
for, which the labor certification is sought. All ca,ndi~tes should . be willing to relocate, at employer's 
expense, to the client sites .nationwide. · 
Part J of the labor Certification states that the beneficiary possesses a Master of Financial Management 
degree {rom . _ __ completed in 2000. The record contains a 
copy of the beneficiary's Bachelor of CoDllllerce degree from . .,.. 
compieted in 1998 and a Master of Financi!_il Ma.n&gement degree from - · -
1 See section 212(a.)($)(D.) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D); see a.[so 8 C.F.R. § 2045(a)(2). 
2 The priority date is the date the DOL accepted the labor certification for processing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§~5~ . . -~ 
(b)(6)
- NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3, 
completed in 2000. 
the record . contain~ ·an evalQ.~tjon of the beneficiary's educational credentials prepared by _ 
m February 28, 2006 and an expert opinion 
letter signed by : on April 8, 2013. 
Pi:!rt I( of the labor certification states that the beneficiary is qualified fot the offered position based on 
experience as-a financial analyst with from October 3, 2000 to December 
31, 2002; a fmance executive with _ from January 9, 
Z003 to July 31, 2003; an associate manager/financial business ailalyst with 
from August 1, 2003 to October 31, 2006; a financial business 
analyst/manager finance with in New York, from November 1, 2006 ~o July 31; 
2010; and as a financial business analyst with the petitioner ftom AuguSt 1, 2010 until May 12, 2011. 
The record contains (ll) ex.perience letter, dated December 15, 2010, from 
ex_ecutive director (administration) and partner, on . indicating that-the 
company employed the beneficiary as a senior business analyst with the company from Augu_s~ 2003 
to July 2010. T.he record also cont~ins an undated experience letter from an unknown individual on 
letterhead Stating that the company employed the 
beneficiary from October 10, 2000 to December 31, 2002; - · 
The director's decision denying the petition .concludes that the beneficiary does not possess the 
minimum requirements of the labor certification, a master;s degree in financial mamtgeinent, MiS, . 
math, .computer science or engineering am:l., 12 months qf experience in the job offered_. - · 
On. appeal, the petitioner challenges the director's finding that the beneficiary does not possess .the 
minimum requirements for the proffered position. · 
. The petitioner's appeal is properly filed, timely 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 ~11 pertinent 
evidence in tbe record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal} A petition th~t 
3 See 5 U.S.C. 557(1;>) ("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 tule. "); see ~lso Janka v. U.S. Dept. ·of Transp, NTSB, 925 F.2_d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. l991) , 
The MO'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 ~ubmjssio11 of a9dit~QI}41 evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to Form l.,;290B, 
Notice of Appeal ot Motion, which are incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1). 
The record in the instan.t case provides no re~son to preclud,e consideration of any of the documents 
newly sl!b]Jlitted on appeaL See Matter ofSotiano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
fails to comply with the technical requirements of tb.e law m(ly 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 ANALYSlS 
The Roles of the . DOL an" 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 
linmigtation 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 
sectjon 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, which provides: · 
Any alien who Seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of perforilling skilled or 
UD$killed labor is inadmissible, Wlless 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, w.illing, qualified (or equally 
qualified in tile ~se of an alien described in Clause (ii)) and available at the time 
of application fot a visa and admission to the United States and at the place 
w)lere the alien is to perfotm such skilled or unskilled labor, and 
(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of wotkets in the United States sinillarly employed. 
It is significant that none of the above inquiries assigned to the DOt, or the regulations implementing 
these duties under 20 C.P.R. § 656, involve a determination as to wl;lether the position and the alien are 
qualified for a specific immigrant ~Classification. This fact has not gone Uillloticed by federal circuit 
courts: 
There is no <;loubt that the authority to make preference classific~tion 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 detetminations listed in section 212(a)(14).6 ld. 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 fra,1,u;l or willful 
misrepresentation, but all matters relating to preference ,classification eligibility not 
e:x:pressly delegated to DOL remain within INS' authority. 
5 See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), a/fd, 
345 F.3d 683 (91h Cir. 2003). . ·; . · 
6 Based on revisions to the Act, the current ci.tation IS section 212(a)(5)(A). 
(b)(6)
Page5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Given the language of the Act, the totality of the legi_sl~dve history, and the agencies' 
own interpretations of their duties under the Act, we must conclude that Congress did 
not intend DOL to hi:lve primi:lry authority to make any determinations other than the 
two stated in section 212(a)(14). If DOL is to i:lnlll~e 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," na.tnely the 
section 212(a)(14) detetrninations . 
. Madany v. Smith; 696 F.2d 1008, 1012.,1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Relying in part oii Madany, 696 F.2d 
at 1008, the Ninth Circuit stated: · 
1 
, . 
[I]t appears that the POL 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 wh_icb he seeks sixth preference status. That 
determination appears to be delegated to the INS un.der section 204(b), 8 tJ .S.C. 
. § 1154(b ), as one of the determinations incident to the INS's de_cision whether the 
alien is entitled to siXth preference stams. 
K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1983). The court relied on i:lfl amicus brief 
frorn_the DOL that stated the following: _ · 
The l_abor certification made by the Secretary of Labor • . , pursua_m to section 
212(a)(14) ofthe [Act] is binding as to the fmdings ofwhether there are able, willing, 
qualified, and available United States workers for t_be job offered to the alien, and 
whether e!]lployment of the alieii' under the terms set by the employer would 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed UnHed 
States workers. -The Jabot certification in no way indicate$ 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 Nintl;l 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 C~,re 
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. § 11_82(a)(14). The lNS then makes its own 
determffi.ation of the alien's entitlement to sixth preference stams. Id. § 204(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1154(b ). See generqlly K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 
1008 9th Cir.l983). 
-- - ---- ________________ .........,.........., _________ _ 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 
availaQle to perform the offered position, and whether the employment of the beneficiary will 
adversely aifect similarly em.ployed U.S, wor]cers. 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(Q)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(Q)(2), provides jmn_rigrant Glassification to members of 
the professions holding advanced degrees, See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(1). 
The regule1tion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines the terms "advClllced degree" and "profession." An 
"advanced degree" is defined as: 
[A]11y Un_ited St(ltes academic or profession(ll degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of baccalaureate. A United States bacealaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specie1lty shallbe considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree 
is customarily requited 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 
mhJ.imum reqtlireme1lt for e11try into the ocC1J,pi3.tion." The. occupCitiQJ:lS listed at section 101(a)(32) of 
the Act a,re "architects, engineers, lawyers, pbysiciClllS, surgeons, ai1d teachers in elem.enta,ry 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 degr¢e professional 
ro:tJst be accompClllied by: · 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree; or 
(13) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States 
baccalaure(lte 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 ofprogressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECE;DENT DECISION 
Page 7 
In addition, the job offer portion of the labor certification must require a professional holdillg an 
advanced degree. See 8 C.F.R.,§ 204.5(k)(4)(i). 
Therefore, an advanced degree professional petition must establish fl!~t the beneficiary is a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree, and that the offered position requires, at a rrrinirttllm, 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. baccalalJ.reate (or a 
foreign equivalent degree) 
followed by at least five years of progressive experience irt the specialty. 
When the beneficiary relies on a bachelor's degree (and five years of prog~:essive 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] copsidering 
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 st Cong., znct Sess. 1990, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6784, 1990 WL 201613 at 6786 (Oct. 26, 1990). 
In 
1991, whert the fmal 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 alic:m to have a ba<;helor's deg~:ee as a 
mipit~nl_IU and that the regulation did not allow for the substitution of experience for education. 
After reviewing section 121 of the IIilmigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649 (1990) and the Joint 
Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, the Service specifically noted tltat 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 seconc::l 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 experiepce in the professions." B.ecause 
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 degtees. 
BU:t both the Act and its legislative history inake 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 Sn,apn_ames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertojf, 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 smgle foreign degree 
or its equivalent is required. Where the analysis of the beneficiary's ·credentials relies oil work 
experience alone or a combination of multiple lesser degrees, the result is the "equivalent" of a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
bachelor's degree rather than a "foreign equivalent d~gree."
7 
In order to hav~ experi~n~ and 
education equating to an advanced degree under section 203(b)(2) of the Act, the tieneficiaty must 
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 S C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i.)(B) requires the submission of an "official academic record showipg that the 
beneficiary has a United States baccalaureate degree ot 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 officia_l college or university record showing the date the baccala11reate 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 profession(ll is any less than the 
evidence req11ired to show that the beneficiary is a professionaL To do so would underllline 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. Pptter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003) (the basic tenet 
of stat11tory construction, to give effect to all provisions, is equally applicable to regulatory 
construction). Moreover, the commentary accompanying the proposed advanced 
degree professional 
regllliltion specifically states that a "baccalaureate means a bachelor's degree receivedjrom a college 
or uitivetsity, or ail equivalent degree." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30706 (July 5, 
1991).8 . . . . 
A three-year bachelor's degree will generally not be considered to be the ''foreign equivalent" ofa 
United States baccalaureate degree. See Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. :244 (Reg1. Comm'r. 1977).Q 
See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act No. 06-2158 (l).D.C. Mar. 26, 2008) (for professional 
classification, USCIS reg-ulations require the beneficiary to posse~s a single fdur-yeat U.S. bachelor's 
degree or foreign 
equivalent degree); see also Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. v. USCIS, 2010 WL 
33Z544Z (E.D.Mich. August 20, .2010) (the beneficiary's three'"year bachelor's degree was not the 
foteigh equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree). 
In the instant case, the petitioner relies on the beneficiary's bachelor of commerce and master of 
-·~ .. -·-
7 Compare 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) (defining for purposes of H-lB 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 irrlmigrilnt 
classification sought in this matter do not contain similar language. 
8 Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) (relating to aliens· of exceptional ability requiring the 
submission of "an official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate 
or similar award from a college, university, school or other institution of learning relating to the area 
of exceptionill ability"). 
9 I:fi 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 yeats of study. /d. at 245. 
(b)(6)
Page9 
financial management degrees from . 
foreign equivalent of a U.S. Master's degree. 
( 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
. as being the 
The, educational, credentials prepared by : . ~ . on February 28, 2006 
·states th~t the beneficiary's bachelor of commerce degree is equivalent to the completion of three 
years ofac~demic stl.ldies toward a Bachelor's degree at an accredited U.S. college or university, and 
his completion of a master's progr~m in financial management subsequent to .completion of the 
bachelor's program fulfilled the requirements for the equivalent of a Master of .Science degree in 
financial management from an accredited U.S. college or university. 10 
The ~xpert opinion letter signed by . _ oil April 8, 2013, states that 
the beneficiary's master's degree in financial management 
required completion of a three-year 
bachelor's degree for admission. _; concludes that the beneficiaxy's completion of a 
two-year Ma~ter of Financial Management program is comparable to a Master of Science degree in 
financial management from an accredited U.S. college or university. 
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, MCRAO is "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more th(ln 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 
llttp://www,aacrao.org!About-AACRAO.aspx. Its mission "is to serve arid advance higher education 
by providing leadership in academic and enrollment services." /d. EDGE is ;,a web,.based resource 
for the evaluation of foreign edt~:cational credentials." See http://edge.aacrao.org/info.php. USCIS 
considers EDGE to be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of information about foreign credentials 
equivalencies.11 
10 USCIS lll(ly, i:p. its discretion, qse asadvisory opinions statements SlJ.binitted ~s expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caton International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCJS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. fd. the submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility. USCIS may evaluate the content of the letters as to whether they support the 
alie:p.'s eligibility. ·see id. at 795. USCIS may give less weight to an opinio.n th(lt is not corroborated, 
in accord With other infotrilation or is in any way questionable. /d. at 795. See a/so Matter of 
Soffid, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Pee. 190 (Reg. Commr. 1972)); Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (l3IA :Z011)(expert witness 
testimony may be given different weight depending oh the extent of the expert's qualifications or the 
relevance, reliability, and probative value of the testimony). 
11 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 infotiiiation 
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 sublllitted and the information obtained from EDGE to conclude-that the beneficiary's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PagelO 
According to EDGE, a three-year Bachelor of Commerce degree from India is comparable to "tWO 
or three years of university study in the United Statesi' and a Master of Commerce degree is 
comparable to a ·aachelor's degree in the United States . 
. ... 
. On A\lgust 26, 2013, t_he AAO issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) indicating that the 
evidence in the record · did not establish that the be_neficiary possesses the education req1.1_ired for 
claSsification as an advanced degree professional or the minimum educational requirements of the 
offered position as set forth on the labor certification. In response to the NOID, the petitioner 
submits a letter, information about _ · an expert 
opinion letter from ~ _, copies Of various EDGE print-outs .regarding diplomas/degrees 
'fmm countries otJu~r th;m Ind.iet, copies of MO decisions, if the previously S\lbmitted expert opinion 
letter from newsletter;, copjes of 
variouS eurriculurll timelines and reqUirementS, new experience letters for the beneficiary and fmancial 
. dOCllll1¢f:lts. 
Counsel claims that the beneficiary's education is equivalent to a bachelor's Master's degree in · 
financial IDCI._nagelllent f.ron1 a college or university in the United States. Alternatively, counsel 
·. contends that the beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position by virtue of his ten (lO) ye(lrs of 
experience in the proffered position. As evidence thereof, counsel has. submitted two (2) expert 
opinion letters. 
An expert opinion letter dated June 4, 2013, from . 
states tll._at there et.re 1ll<.my countries that combine five- or six- year bachelor's and master's programs 
leading to the equivalent of a Master's degr~e in the United States. • states tbat tile five­
year sequence ofbachelor's and master's studies in Italy is similar to the sequence of bachelor's and 
master's studies in India and provides citations to EDGE Indicating that a ·Russian Spetsialiste 
degree, a Ukrainian Dyplom Spetsialiste, a Bulgarian. Magister, a Swiss ·Dip lome and· other combined 
bachelors and master's studies are "equivalentto a Master's degree ill the United States." However, 
unlike with a Russian Spetsialiste degree, a Ukrainian Dyplom Spetsialiste, a Bulgarian Magister ot 
a Swiss Diplome~ EDGE sta.tes that the beneficiary's M~ter's degree in India is only "equivalent to 
a Bachelor's degree in the United States," rather than "equivalent to a M.~t¢r's degree in the United · 
States.'' does not explain why he relies on the conclusions of EDGE with respect to 
Master's degree programs in other countries, but not on EDGE's conclusions .for the Ma5ter of 
Coll1IDerce degree in ln.d.ia. · 
three-year foreign "baccalaureate" and foreign "Master's" degree were .only con1parable 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 w~s entitl~d to prefer tll.e illfoflllation in EDGE 
and did not abuse its discretion in reaching its conclusion. The court also noted that the labor 
~rtification required a degree and did not allow for the combination of education and experience .. 
12 The AAO decision s1.1bn1itted are not precedent decisions. . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Ap. expert opinion letter dated April 8, 2013, from concludes 
that the beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a Master's degree in the United States. Mr. 
provides an analysis of the two years of graduate-level studies the beneficiary 
completed, concluding that his completion of 61.5 graduate-level credits in finanCial management 
satisfied the credit requirements for a U.S. Master's degree, which typically 
requires between 30 and 
60 graduate-level cre(lits. concludes that. the beneficiary's five years of study at 
constitute a single source master's degree, akin to programs at u.s. universities that produce 
master's d~grees after five years of study. Attached to the evaluation are a list of U.S. 
schools that offer five-year joint bachelor's/master's degree programs and a list of U.S. ·schools that 
of(er one-year master's .degree programs, along With their curricuhim. It would appear that all of the 
five-year joint bachelor's/master's degree programs at U.S. schools incorporate a four-year bachelor's 
degree, not a three-year degree like the be11eficiary's i11 this proceeding. A four-year bachelor's 
degree. would also appear ·to be the prerequisite for admission to a U.S. school's one-year master's 
degree program. Accordingly, the five-year joint bachelor's/master's degree programs and one-year 
master's degree programs in the United States cited by are not comparable to the 
benefi<:;iary's post-secondar:y studies in India, which consist of a three-year bachelor's degree and a 
two-year master's degree. In the final analysis, the evaluation does not establish that the 
beneficiary's education was substantially equivalent to a U.S. master's degree program, which is the 
Cf1lX of the issue. ; indicates that he is a member of and lists the 
as his reference that a three-year baccalaureate combined 
with a two-year Master's degree with at least 50 percent in marks is equivalent to a U.S. M~tster's 
degree. However, this opinion cannot supersede the current peer-reviewed infotmation in EDGE.13 
Therefore, based on the conclusions of EDGE, the evidence in the record is not sufficientto establish 
that the beneficiary possesses a degree that is, by itself, the.foreign equivalent ofa U.S. bachelor's 
degree. ./ 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, it is concluded that the petitioner has failed to 
es.t.ablish that the beneficiary possessed at least a U.S. aC{ldemic or professional degree (or a foreign 
equivalent degree) above a baccalaureate. Although the record does establish that the beneficiary 
possesses a U.S. baccalaureate (or a foreign equivalent degree), for reasons discussedbelow, the record 
does not demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty. Therefore, the beneficiary does not qualify for classification as ail advanced .. degree 
professional under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
13 The·bylaws for NAFSA, downloaded from www.nafsa.org on October 24, 2008,- do not provide 
any specific requirements for members in Article II other than the payment of dues. Voting members 
must be individuals working in educational institutions, training or research facilities, organizations 
involved with international education or those employed independent! y. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 12 
The Minimum Requirements of the Offered Position 
The petitioner Il1USt 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 CF.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). 
li1 evaluating the job offer portion of the labor certification to determine the required qualifications 
for the position, {JSCIS may not ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional 
. requirements. See Mq.dany, 696 F.2d at 1008; K.R.K. Irvine, Inc~, 699 F .. Zd 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 otberwise unam.biguously pre~cribed, e.g., 
· _ by regulation, US CIS must examine "the language of the labor certification job reqqirements" in 
order to determine what the petitioner must demonstrate about the beneficiary's qualifications. 
Madany, 696 F.2d at 1Q15. The only ration~!J m_anner by wbich USCJS c::ap. be e~pected to interpret 
the meaning of terms used to describe the requirements of a job in a labor certification is to 
•iexamine the certified job offer_ exactly as it is completed by the prospective employer}' Rosedale 
Linden Park Company v. Smith, 595 F. Supp, S29; 833 (D.D.C. i984)(emphasis added). USCIS's 
interpretation of the job's requirements, as stated oil the labor certification must involve "reading and 
applyhtg the plain language of the [labor certification]." /d. at 834 (emphasis added). USCIS 
_ cannot and should not reasonably be expected to look beyond tbe plain la11guage of the labor 
eertification or otherwise attempt to divine the employer's intentions througb some sort of reverse 
engineering of the labor certification. Everi though the labor certification may be prepared With the 
beneficiary in mind, USClS has an independent roie in determi:oi11g wbetber t_he beneficiary meets, the 
labor certification requirements. See Snapnames.com, Inc. v: Michael Chertoff, 2006 WL3491005 *7 
(D. Or, Nov. 30, 2006). 
In the instant case, the labor certification states that the offered position requi_res a maste_r's degree in 
fmancial management, MIS, mathematics, computer science or ertgirieeriilg:> plus lZ Jilopt}:l_s of 
experience in the proffered position. For the reasons explained above, the petitioner has failed to 
est~bllsb UJ.~t t.Qe ben~ijciacy possesses a master's degree in fmancial management, ·MIS, mathematics, 
computer science or engineering. · 
· In addition, the petitioner had also failed to establish that the petitioner possesses the required 
~xper:i.tmce for the of{er:ed position. 
Evidence relating to qualifying experience must be in the form of a letter from a curteilt or fotiner 
employer and must include the name, address, and title of the writer, a.n..d. ~ specifi<:; description of the . 
duties performed by the beneficiary. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(g)(l). If such evidence is unavailable, USCIS 
may consider other documentation relating to the beneficiary's experience. /d. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT JJECISION 
As discussed above, the record contains an experience letter dated December 15, 2010, ftom 
execu~ive director (administration) and partner, on l 
letterhead, indicating that the company employed the beneficiary as a senipr business analy~t with 
the company from August 2003 to July 2010. However, the letter states that the beneficiary was 
employed as a senior business analyst and not in the proffered position of financial business analyst. 
The description of the job duties as set forth in the experience letter do not reflect the requtred 
experience i:p. the proffered position, Le. experience regarding financial analysis and data 
manage·ment. 
The record . also contains an undated experience letter from an unknown individual on . 
_ . , I letterhead Stating that the company employed the beneficiary 
ftom October :1.0, 2000 to December 31, 2002. However, the letter does not state the title of the 
bepeficiary's position or provide the name and address of the employer and the title of the signatory. 
The description of the job duties as set forth ill the experience letter do not reflect the required 
experience . in the proffered position, i.e. experience . regarding financial analysis and data 
managelllent.. Moreover, the description of the beneficiary's job duties contained in the experience 
letter appear to be different from those job duties listed on the labor certification for the same 
employment and period of time. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in 
the· record by\. independeQt 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 ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
· . In response to the AAO's NOID, the petitioner submits an affidavit dated October Q, 2013, from 
senior business analyst for ~ . 4 stating that he was employed as an IT 
consqltant at . , . while the beneficiary was also 
employed at from November 1, 2006 to July 31, 2010, as an employee of 
. He states that the beneficiary was em.ployed in the capacity of a senior business 
analyst and was functionally responsible for fi:p.ancial business analysis. The affidavit .goes on to 
provide the beneficiary's job duties ill language identical to that used to describe the proffered 
position on the labor certification. However, the affidavit does not meet ali of the requirements of 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(g)(1) and the petitioner has not established the need for secondary evidence with any 
docwneptary evidence of the qualifying employer's closing; the petitioner also does not submlt 
affidavits from two persons to establish the fact of the beneficiary's employment as required by 
8 nF.R. § 103.2(b)(2). Moreover, the description of the job duties contained ill the affidavit appears 
to differ from those job duties listed in the experience letter from the qualifying employer. Matter of 
}[o,l9 J&N Pee. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Therefore, the submitted experience letters do not establish that the beneficiary possessed the 
required e:x;perience for the offered position. 
14 The petitioner and have the same owner. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
.. 
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 (ln advanceq degree as 
requ,ired by the terms of the labor certifiqation and the requested preference classification . 
. Therefore, the beneficiary does not qualify fot Classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced· degree under section 203(b )(2) of the A<;t. The director's decision denying the petition 
is (lffil1Iled. 
The a,ppeal will be dismissed for tbe CJhove stCJ.ted rea,sons, witb eacb considered a_s C:\11 illdependept 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish 1 eligibility for thejmmigratiori benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8lLS.C. § 1361; 
Matter of Otiende., 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (13IA 4013), IIere, that burden has not been Il1et. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.