dismissed EB-2 Case: Health Care Administration

. 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
Ifr.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
SRC 07 184 521 12 
IN RE: 
APR 2 8 2010 
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. tj 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The petitioner filed a Motion to Reopen. On April 15, 2009, the director withdrew his 
denial of the petition, approved the petition, and certified the matter to the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO). The decision to approve the petition will be withdrawn, and the petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner claims to be a health care administration business. It seeks to permanently employ the 
beneficiary in the United States as a team leader. 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. 8 1153(b)(2).' The petition is accompanied by a Form ETA 750, 
Application for Alien Employment Certification (labor certification), certified by the U.S. 
Department of Labor (DOL). The priority date of the petition is October 31, 2003, which is the date 
the labor certification was accepted for processing by the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(d). 
As is set forth in the director's February 23, 2008 denial and the April 15, 2009 certified decision, at 
issue on appeal is whether the beneficiary is a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The AAO will also consider whether the beneficiary meets the minimum requirements of 
the offered position as set forth in the labor certification.' 
At the outset, it is usell to discuss the DOL's role in this process. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act 
provides: 
In general.-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 
'section 203(b)(2) of the Ad provides immigrant classification to members of the professions 
holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability, whose services are sought by an employer 
in the United States. There is no evidence in the record of proceeding that the beneficiary possesses 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. Accordingly, consideration of the petition will 
be limited to whether the beneficiary is eligible for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 
2 An application or 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. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), afyd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
Page 3 
(11) 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 remaining 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 41 7,429 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In turn, DOL has the authority 
to make the two determinations listed in section 212(a)(14).~ 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 2 12(a)(14) determinations. 
Maduny v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 101 2-1 01 3 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Relying in part on Maduny, 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. 
9 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, 1 008 (9' Cir. 1983). The court relied on an amicus brief 
fi-om the DOL that stated the following: 
3 Based on revisions to the Act, the current citation is section 212(a)(5)(A) as set forth above. 
The labor certification made by the Secretary of Labor ... pursuant to section 
21 2(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 certijication in no way indicates that the alien offered the 
certified job opportunity is qualijied (or not qualzjied) to perform the duties of that 
job. 
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citing K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006, revisited 
this issue, stating: 
The [DOL] must certify that insufficient domestic workers are available to perform 
the job and that the alien's performance of the job will not adversely affect the wages 
and working conditions of similarly employed domestic workers. Id. 5 2 12(a)(14), 8 
U.S.C. 5 11 82(a)(14). The INS then makes its own determination of the alien's 
entitlement to sixth preference status. Id. 5 204(b), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 154(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 (9fi Cir. 1984). 
In summary, it is the DOL's responsibility to certify the terms of the labor certification, but it is the 
responsibility of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to determine if the petition and 
the alien beneficiary are eligible for the classification sought. 
Returning to the case at hand, in order to obtain classification in the requested employment-based 
preference category, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3) 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2), defines "advanced degree" as: 
[Alny 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) hrther requires the submission of an "official 
academic record showing that the alien has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree." The regulations use a singular description of foreign equivalent degree. Thus, 
the plain meaning of the regulatory language is that the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary 
possesses a single degree that is a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent.4 
Significantly, the third preference professional classification also contains the requirement of a 
single degree from a college or university. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) states: 
If the petition is for a professional, the petition must be accompanied by evidence 
that the alien holds a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree and by evidence that the alien is a member of the professions. Evidence of a 
baccalaureate degree shall be in the form of an official college or university record 
showing the date the baccalaureate degree was awarded and the area of 
concentration of study. 
The AAO cannot conclude that the evidence required to demonstrate that an alien is a second 
preference advanced degree professional is any less than the evidence required to show that the alien 
is a third preference professional. To do so would undermine the congressionally mandated 
classification scheme by allowing a lesser evidentiary standard for the more restrictive visa 
classification. Instead, persons who claim to qualify for an immigrant visa by virtue of a 
combination of education (andlor experience) equating to a U.S. bachelor's degree may qualify as a 
third preference skilled worker pursuant to Section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act. 
Moreover, the commentary accompanying the proposed advanced degree professional regulation 
specifically states that a "baccalaureate means a bachelor's degree received from a college or 
university, or an equivalent degree." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30306 (July 5, 1991).~ 
Further, in the final rule for 8 C.F. R. 5 204.5, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (the 
Service), responded to criticism that the regulation did not allow for the substitution of experience 
for education. In response, 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 
4~t is noted that the H-1B nonimmigrant visa category regulation permits "equivalence to completion 
of a college degree" as including, in certain cases, a specific combination of education and 
experience. 8 C.F.R. 5 2 1 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). The regulations pertaining to the immigrant 
classification sought in this case do not contain similar language. 
'Cf: 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 abilit yV)(emphasis added). 
Page 6 
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). 
In summary, there is no provision in the statute or the regulations that would allow a beneficiary to 
qualify under section 203(b)(2) of the Act as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree with anything less than a full U.S. baccalaureate degree (or foreign equivalent) from a college 
or university. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
The record of proceeding contains the beneficiary's diploma and transcript for a three-year bachelor 
of science degree from Osmania University in Hyderabad, India. The beneficiary's transcript reflects 
that, in addition to English and Sanskrit in his first and second years, the beneficiary took Chemistry 
1, Physics 1, Mathematics 1 and Indian History and Culture in his first year, Chemistry 2, Physics 2, 
Mathematics 2 and Science and Civilization in his second year, and Chemistry 3 and 4, Physics 3 
and 4 and Mathematics 3 and 4 in his third year. 
The record contains two evaluations of the beneficiary's bachelor of science degree. The first 
evaluation, dated January 12, 2008, was prepared by I - for ~uri~ean-~merican 
zvaluat ion).' The second located in the CommonGea6h of 
evaluation, also dated January 12, 2008, was prepared by 
located in England I 
science degree from Osmania University is equivalent to a 120 credit hour bachelor of science - 
degree in mathematics and physics from a U.S. institution of higher education. It is noted that the 
6~ccording to its website, www.thedegree.org/apel.html (accessed September 18, 2009), European- 
American University, Ltd. awards degrees based on experience. 
7~he evaluation states that has a canonical diploma of Sacra? Theologia? Professor, 
equivalent to a Doctorate of Divinity, from St. David's Oecumenical Institute of Divinity. The only 
mention of this institution on the internet is a reference to its founding in 1985. 
www.liberalcatholics.org/education.html. This website also has a section dedicated to European- 
American University, Ltd. 
8~he evaluation states that has a Doctor of Divinity, but does not indicate the school 
where he obtained this degree. 
evaluations are fbndamentally identical, with each evaluation referencing many of the same 
supporting materials. 
The hndamental argument of both evaluations is that a three-year bachelor's degree f?om India is 
equivalent to a 120 credit hour U.S. bachelor's degree, because an Indian three-year degree requires 
the same number of classroom hours (or "contact hours") as a U.S. bachelor's degree. The 
evaluations claim that a student must attend at least 15 50-minute classroom hours to earn one 
semester credit hour under the U.S. system. Since U.S. bachelor's degree programs require 120 
credit hours for graduation, the evaluations conclude that a program of study with 1800 classroom 
hours is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Since a three-year bachelor's degree fiom India 
allegedly requires over 1800 classroom hours, the evaluations conclude that it is equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree. 
The evaluations base this equivalency formula on the claim that the U.S. semester credit hour is a 
variant of the "Carnegie Unit." 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 s~bject.~ 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.1° 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." According to the foundation's website, the "Carnegie Unit" relates to the 
number of classroom hours a high school student should have with a teacher, and "does not apply to 
higher education. "I2 
In its analysis of the beneficiary's credentials,breaks down the subjects listed 
on the beneficiary's transcript into courses and practicals, and awards credits for each course and 
practical, concluding that the beneficiary achieved over 120 "contact hours using the Carnegie Unit." 
The evaluation does not explain how the individual course credit numbers were determined, which 
vary fiom 2.6 to 7.8. The beneficiary's transcript does not provide any information as to classroom 
hours or credits. While concludes that he has computed the beneficiary's 
credits to total 120, the total of the credits it assigns is only 117.8. akes no 
-- 
'~he Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was founded in 1905 as an independent 
policy and research center whose charge is "to do and perform all things necessary to encourage, 
uphold, and dignify the profession o f the teacher." 
http://www. carnegiefoundation.org/about/index. asp. 
attempt to assign credits for the beneficiary's individual courses, and merely concludes that the 
beneficiary's three-year bachelor of science degree is equivalent to a U.S. degree. 
The record also contains a letter from the assistant registrar of Osmania University providing the 
number of hours per week for each course and "practical." The practicals are not listed as separate 
courses on the beneficiary's transcript. Moreover, this new letter is inconsistent with the 
beneficiary's previously submitted transcript as Mathematics 4, Physics 4 and Chemistry 4 are not 
listed as courses in year three or any other year. Moreover, the beneficiary's courses in Indian 
History and Culture and Science and Civilization are not listed. Finally, the stated hours per week 
have no correlation with the number of credits assigned in the Linley evaluation. For example, the 
Linley evaluation assigns 7.8 credits per math course as compared with 5.2 credits for each science 
course in years one and two, even though the assistant registrar's letter indicates the same number of 
hours for both math and science in years one and two. 
There is no support in the record for the argument that a three-year bachelor's degree fi-om India is 
equivalent to a US. bachelor's degree because both degrees allegedly require an equivalent amount 
of classroom time. The evaluations fail to provide any peer-reviewed material (or other reliable 
evidence) confirming that assigning credits based on hours spent in the classroom is applicable to 
evaluating three-year bachelor of science degrees fi-om India. For example, if the ratio of hours 
spent studying outside the classroom is different in the Indian and U.S. systems, comparing hours 
spent in the classroom would be misleading.13 
Both evaluations also argue that the U.S. and India are members of United Nations Educational, 
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) treaties, and that UNESCO "clearly recommends 
that the 3 and 4 year degree should be treated as equivalent to a bachelor's degree by all UNESCO 
members." In support ofthis claim, the evaluations reference the UNESCO Recommendation on the 
Recognition of Studies and Qualifications in Higher Education in 1993. UNESCO has six regional 
conventions on the recognition of qualifications, and one interregional convention. A UNESCO 
convention on the recognition of qualifications is a legal agreement between countries agreeing to 
recognize academic qualifications issued by other countries that have ratified the same agreement. 
While India has ratified one UNESCO convention on the recognition of qualifications (Asia and the 
Pacific), the United States has ratified none of the UNESCO conventions on the recognition of 
qualifications. In an effort to move toward a single universal convention, the UNESCO General 
Conference adopted a Recommendation on the Recognition of Studies and Qualifications in Higher 
Education in 1993. The United States was not a member of UNESCO between 1984 and 2002, and 
the Recommendation on the Recognition of Studies and Qualifications in Higher Education is not a 
13see e.g., Robert A. Watkins, The University of Texas at Austin, "Assigning Undergraduate 
Transfer Credit: It's Only an Arithmetical Exercise," at 
http://handouts.aacrao.org/am07/finished/F0345p~M~Donahue.pdf (accessed September 1 8, 
2009)(stating that the Indian system is exam-based instead of credit-based, thus transfer credits from 
India are derived from the number of exams passed; and that, in India, six exams equates to 30 credit 
hours). 
Page 9 
binding legal agreement to recognize academic qualifications between UNESCO 
members.14 Specifically, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Recognition of Studies and 
Qualifications in Higher Education in 1993 contains the language relating to "recognition" of 
qualifications awarded in higher education. Paragraph 1 (e) defines recognition as follows: 
"Recognition" of a foreign qualification in higher education means its acceptance 
by the competent authorities of the State concerned (whether they be 
governmental or nongovernmental) as entitling its holder to be considered under 
the same conditions as those holding a comparable qualification awarded in that 
State an deemed comparable, for the purposes of access to or fbrther pursuit of 
higher education studies, participation in research, the practice of a profession, if 
this does not require the passing of examinations or fiu-ther special preparation, or 
all the foregoing, according to the scope of the recognition. 
The UNESCO recommendation relates to admission to graduate school and training programs and 
eligibility to practice in a profession. Nowhere does it suggest that a three-year degree must be 
deemed equivalent to a four-year degree. More significantly, the recommendation does not define 
"comparable qualification." At the heart of this matter is whether the beneficiary's degree is, in fact, 
the foreign equivalent of a U. S. baccalaureate. The UNESCO recommendation does not address this 
issue. 
In fact, UNESCO's publication, "The Handbook on Diplomas, Degrees and Other Certificates in 
Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific" 82 (2d ed. 2004), provides: l5 
Most of the universities and the institutions recognized by the UGC or by other 
authorized public agencies in India, are members of the Association of 
Commonwealth Universities. Besides, India is party to a few UNESCO conventions 
and there also exists a few bilateral agreements, protocols and conventions between 
India and a few countries on the recognition of degrees and diplomas awarded by the 
Indian universities. But many foreign universities adopt their own approach in finding 
out the equivalence of Indian degrees and diplomas and their recognition, just as 
Indian universities do in the case of foreign degrees and diplomas. The Association of 
Indian Universities plays an important role in this. There are no agreements that 
necessarily bind India and other governments/universities to recognize, en masse, all 
the degrees/diplomas of all the universities either on a mutual basis or on a 
multilateral basis. Of late, many foreign universities and institutions are entering into 
the higher education arena in the country. Methods of recognition of such institutions 
and the courses offered by them are under serious consideration of the government of 
14 See http://www.unesco.org. 
Page 10 
India. The [University Grants Commission], [All India Council for Technical 
Education] and [Association of Indian Universities] are developing criteria and 
mechanisms regarding the same. 
Id. at 84. (Emphasis added.). In summary, reliance on UNESCO for the proposition that a three- 
year Indian bachelor's degree is equivalent to a four-year U.S. bachelor's degree is misplaced. 
Both evaluations include an article titled "Brief History of the American Academic Credit System: A 
Recipe for Incoherence in Student Learning," by, ~e~tember 2002. 
The article discusses evolution and shortcomings of the U.S. credit hour system, and examines the 
arbitrariness of the credit hour as a purported unit of learning. It is noted that the article's criticism 
of the semester credit hour is equally applicable to the classroom contact hour. Accordingly, the 
article undermines the claims of the evaluations, which seek to directly equate the U.S. semester 
credit hour with the classroom contact hour when comparing bachelor's degrees from different 
countries. 
Both evaluations assert that some U.S. institutions of higher education will consider holders of three- 
year bachelor's degrees from India for entry into their master's degree programs. However, the 
evaluations do not address whether those few U.S. institutions that accept three-year degrees from 
India do so subject to additional conditions, such as requiring the degree holder to complete extra 
credits prior to admission. Further, the fact that some U.S. graduate programs accept three-year 
degrees has little relevance to whether the beneficiary's degree is, in fact, the foreign equivalent of a 
U. S. baccalaureate. 
Both evaluations also state that some U. S. institutions offer three- year bachelor's degree programs. 
It is noted that there exists accelerated degree programs in the United States. However, this fact 
provides no usefbl information about the degree obtained by the beneficiary in India. At issue is the 
actual equivalence of the specific degree the beneficiary obtained, not whether it is possible to obtain 
a baccalaureate in less than four years in an accelerated program in the United States. The 
beneficiary did not compress his studies to obtain a degree in less than four years from an institution 
that grants four-year degrees, and, even if this were the case, the petitioner would need to establish 
that the beneficiary's accelerated degree is equivalent to a four-year, 120 credit hour U.S. bachelor's 
degree. 
Both evaluations also cite a Council of Graduate Schools survey concerning the acceptance of three- 
year degrees. The survey shows that a small number of U.S. graduate programs accept three-year 
degrees from India. The survey does not reflect how many of the limited number of institutions that 
accept three-year degrees from outside of Europe do so provisionally. If the three-year Indian 
baccalaureate were truly a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate, the vast majority of 
U.S. institutions would accept these degrees for graduate admission without provision. The cited 
survey underlines that there is not wide acceptance within the academic community of three-year 
degrees for admission into graduate schools. The evaluations provide no study or report that 
conclusively states that all Indian three-year degrees are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, or 
Page 11 
even that Indian three-year degrees are generally accepted for admission into U.S. graduate degree 
programs. 
Both evaluations cite an article fiom World Education News & Reviews (WENR), titled "Evaluating 
the Bologna Degree in the u.S."'~ WENR is a monthly newsletter published by World Education 
Services (WES), a credentials evaluation organization. The newsletter article includes a brief 
assessment of three-year Bologna degrees from Europe. The article states that U.S. bachelor's 
degrees are based on the completion of 120 semester credits, and are generally completed over a 
four-year period. According to the article, approximately half of a U.S. bachelor's degree is devoted 
to general studies, and the remaining credits are devoted to the student's major and related subjects. 
In contrast, the Bologna degrees "are more heavily concentrated in the major - or specialization - 
and that the general education component which is so crucial to U.S. undergraduate education is 
absent." The article compared a bachelor's degree in business administration fiom Indiana 
University in Bloomington, and a business administration Bologna degree fiom the Bocconi 
University in Milan, Italy. The article concludes, after assessing the requirements for admission to a 
Bologna degree program, its contents and structure, and the function that the credential is designed 
to serve in the home system, that the Bologna degree is "functionally equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree." However, this non-peer reviewed article fi-om a newsletter is irrelevant as it provides no 
evidence for why the beneficiary's bachelor's degree fiom India is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree. 
The Kersey evaluation also cites to an article titled "Doe our Degree Depend on the 
Color of Your Skin?" which the author co-wrote with The record contains no 
evidence that this article was published in a peer-reviewed publication or anywhere other than on the 
internet. The article states that some British and U.S. colleges and universities accept three-year 
bachelor's degrees for admission to graduate school, but acknowledges that others do not. The 
article concedes: 
None of the members of [the National Association of Credential Evaluation Services] 
who were approached were willing to grant equivalency to a bachelor's degree from a 
regionally accredited institution in the United States, although we heard anecdotally 
that one, [World Education Services], had been interested in doing so. 
In this process, we encountered a number of the objections to equivalency that have 
already been discussed. 
commented thus, 
"Contrary to your statement, a degree fiom a three-year "Bologna Process" bachelor's 
degree program in Europe will NOT be accepted as a degree by the majority of 
"WWW. we~.or~/e~~~~/04rnarch/~eature. htm. 
universities in the Untied States. Similarly, the majority do not accept a bachelor's 
degree fiom a three-year program in India or any other country except England. 
England is a unique situation because of the specialized nature of Form VI." 
International Education Consultants of Delaware, Inc., raise similar objections to 
those raised by ECE, 
"The Indian educational system, along with that of Canada and some other countries, 
generally adopted the UK-pattern 3-year degree. But the UK retained the important 
preliminary A level examinations. These examinations are used for advanced 
standing credit in the UK; we follow their lead, and use those examinations to 
constitute [an] additional year of undergraduate study. The combination of these two 
entities is equivalent to a 4-year U.S. Bachelor's degree. 
The Indian educational system dropped that advanced standing year. You enter a 3- 
year Indian degree program directly fi-om Year 12 of your education. In the US, there 
are no degree programs entered fiom a stage lower than Year 12, and there are no 3- 
year degree programs. Without the additional advanced standing year, there's no 
equivalency. 
In addition, the Kersey evaluation cites to the article "Three Year Undergraduate Degrees: 
Recommendations for Graduate Admission Consideration", ADSEC News, April 2005. The Kersey 
evaluation claims that the article concludes that, because the U.S. is willing to consider three-year 
degrees fiom Israel and the European Union, Indian bachelor's degree holders should be provided 
the same opportunity to pursue graduate education in the U.S. However, the article does not suggest 
that Indian three-year degrees are comparable to a U.S. baccalaureate. Instead, the article proposes 
accepting afirst class honors three-year degree following a secondary degree fiom a Central Board 
of Secondary Education or Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations program, or a 
three-year degree plus a post graduate diploma fiom an institution that is accredited or recognized 
by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council and/or the All India Council for Technical 
Education. Therefore this non-peer reviewed article ii-om a newsletter directly undermines the 
argument that three-year degrees fiom India are, as a whole, equivalent to four-year U.S. bachelor's 
degrees. 
In hrther su~vort of its claim that a three-vear bachelor's degree fiom India is eauivalent to a U.S. 
degree. This letter states that this opinion is based on the number of contact hours in each program, 
the UNESCO treaty, and the fact that Bologna degrees fiom Israel, Canada, and Europe are accepted 
by U.S. colleges &d universities. The second letter is from 
Gadge Maharaj College of Commerce & Economics, addres 
a three-year degree fi-om India is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The letter states that this 
conclusion is based on the author's opinion that Indian degrees require over 1800 contact hours. The 
third letter is fi-om former professor at Mumbai University, also addressed to Ms. 
states that a three-year degree fiom India is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree based on 
the author's opinion that Indian degrees require over 1800 contact hours. There is no evidence in the 
record demonstrating that these individuals are qualified to determine whether a foreign academic 
credential is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate. 
- also cites to Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertofi 2006 WL 3491 005 (D. 
Ore. Nov. 30,2006). In that case, the alien not only had a credential beyond a three-year degree, the 
judge determined that even with that extra credential, the alien was only eligible as a skilled worker 
pursuant to section 203(b)(3) of the Act, and not as either a professional or an advanced degree 
professional pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Act. Id. Accordingly, this case provides no support 
for the conclusion of the Kersey evaluation. 
USCIS 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, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters fi-om experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS 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. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Sof$ci, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornrnr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
Given the inconsistencies between the statements in the evaluations and the evidence in the record, 
we have reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) created by the American 
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). AACRAO is "a 
nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more than 1 0,000 higher education admissions and 
registration professionals who represent approximately 2,500 institutions in more than 30 
countries. " " Its mission "is to provide professional development, guidelines and voluntary standards 
to be used by higher education officials regarding the best practices in records management, 
admissions, enrollment management, administrative information technology and student services." 
Id. 
EDGE is "a web-based resource for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials" that is 
continually updated and revised by staff and members of AACRAO.'~ Authors for EDGE are not 
merely expressing their personal opinions. Rather, authors for EDGE must work with a publication 
' ' http://www . aacrao .org/about . 
I- of International Education Services, "AACRAO EDGE Login," 
consultant and a Council Liaison with AACRAO's National Council on the Evaluation of Foreign 
Educational Credentials.I9 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. 
Id. at 11-12. 
EDGE provides that a three-year bachelor of science degree from India represents the attainment of 
a level of education comparable to three years of university study in the United States. This 
information contradicts the evaluations submitted. 
The AAO also reviewed AACRAO's Project for International Education Research (PIER) 
publications: the P.1.E.R World Education Series India: A Special Report on the Higher Education 
System and Guide to the Academic Placement of Students in Educational Institutions in the United 
States (1997). We note that the 1997 publication incorporates the first degree and education degree 
placements set forth in the 1986 publication. Id. at at 43. As with EDGE, these publications 
represent conclusions vetted by a team of experts rather than the opinion of an individual. One of 
the PIER publications also reveals that a year-for-year analysis is an accurate way to evaluate Indian 
post-secondary education. A P.I.E.R. Workshop Report on South Asia at I80 explicitly states that 
"transfer credits should be considered on a year-by-year basis starting with post-Grade 12 year." 
The chart that follows states that 12 years of primary and secondary education followed by a three- 
year baccalaureate "may be considered for undergraduate admission with possible advanced standing 
up to three years (0-90 semester credits) to be determined through a course to course analysis." This 
information also undermines the evaluations submitted, both of which attempt to assign credits hours 
for the beneficiary's three-year baccalaureate that are close to or beyond the 120 credits typically 
required for a U.S. baccalaureate. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless 
the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
On October 30, 2009, the AAO sent the petitioner a notice of intent to deny the petition because the 
evidence in the record of proceeding did not establish that the beneficiary's three-year bachelor of 
science degree from India is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a new academic credentials evaluation from - 
dated November 24, 2009.~' The Damig evaluation states that the beneficiary's three-year bachelor's 
I9"~n Author's Guide to Creating AACRAO International Publications" 5-6 (First ed. 2005), 
available at www.aacrao.org/publications/guide~to~creating~internationalqublications.pdf 
Transpersonal Psychology and a doctorate from Ecole Superieure Robert de Sorbon, but does not 
indicate the field in which she obtained her doctorate. According to its website www.sorbon.fi-, 
Ecole Superieure Robert de Sorbon awards degrees based on past experience. is also 
degree fiom Osmania University is equivalent to a four-year U.S. bachelor of science degree in 
Mathematics and Physics. The evaluation states that some foreign three-year degrees are accepted 
as equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree; that some U.S. graduate programs accept applicants with 
three-year bachelor's degrees; and that the Indian three-year degree has as many classroom hours as 
a U.S. four-year bachelor's de ee. These arguments repeat those made in - 
evaluations discussed above. b evaluation then provides a course-by-course analysis of 
the beneficiary's transcript, converting the beneficiary's purported classroom hours into credit hours. 
Again, this approach w& advocated 1 evaluations as discussed above. Using 
this methodology- evaluation assigns up to 10 credit hours for a single course on the 
beneficiary's transcript, with many courses being assigned 8 credits. 
As is stated above, USCIS uses an evaluation by a credentials evaluation organization of a person's 
foreign education as an advisory opinion only. Where an evaluation is not in accord with previous 
equivalencies or is in any way questionable, it may be discounted or given less weight. Matter of 
Sea. 19 I&N Dec. 81 7. 
The Danzig evaluation does not address the findings of EDGE or explain why the conclusions of 
EDGE differ fiom her evaluation. It is unclear how concludes that the beneficiary's 
field of study is in Mathematics and Physics, when the beneficiary completed far more courses and 
credits in Chemistry than Mathematics. Further, the validity of methodology of 
converted purported "contact" hours into academic credit is unsupported. 
In light of the above, it is concluded that the academic credentials evaluation submitted by the 
petitioner in response to the notice of intent to deny does not establish that the beneficiary possesses 
a foreign degree that is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Accordingly, the beneficiary cannot 
be classified as a member of the professions, and the petition must be denied. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has also failed to establish that the beneficiary 
possessed all the education, training, and experience specified on the labor certification as of the 
priority date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. at 159; see 
also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Comrn. 1971). In the instant case, the priority 
states that she is a vrofessor at Marauess College of London. where she oversees standards for 
granting college credit based on past kxperience.-'states that she is a member of the 
American Evaluation Association (AEA), the Association of International Educators, and the 
European Association for International Education (EAIE). The record does not indicate what these 
organizations require for membership, and their websites do not indicate that anything other than the 
payment of dues for membership is required. For example, the bylaws for the AEA at 
http://www.eval.org/aboutus/bylaws.asp, states: "Any individual interested in the purposes of the 
Association shall be eligible for membership. Members are defined as those who have completed an 
application form, received acknowledgment of membership from the Association, and paid the 
currently stipulated membership dues." Membership in organizations that only require the payment 
of dues does not confer any expertise. 
date is October 3 1, 2003, which is the date the labor certification was accepted for processing by the 
DOL. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(d). In evaluating the requirements for the offered position, USCIS must 
look to the job offer portion of the labor certification. USCIS may not ignore a term of the labor 
certification, nor may it impose additional requirements. See Matter of Silver Dragon Chinese 
Restaurant, 19 I&N Dec. 401, 406 (Cornrn. 1986). See also, Mandany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008; 
K.R.K. Iwine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006; Stewart Infra-Red Commissary of Massachusetts, Inc. 
v. Coorney, 661 F.2d 1 (1" Cir. 1981). 
The required education, training, experience and special requirements for the offered position are set 
forth at Part A, Items 14 and 15, of Form ETA 750. In the instant case, the labor certification states that 
the position has the following minimum requirements: 
Education: "4" year bachelors degree in math, physics or computer science. 
M: None required. 
Experience: Five years of experience in the job offered or in the related occupation of software 
development. 
Other Special Requirements: Five years of information systems experience, including two years of 
software development experience in health care. 
It is noted that the labor certification explicitly requires an individual with a four-year bachelor's 
degree. As is explained in detail above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
possesses a foreign degree that is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. It also has not been 
established that the beneficiary attended four years of college or university. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary is a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The record also does not establish that the beneficiary meets the minimum 
requirements of the offered position as set forth in the labor certification. The petition will be denied 
for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternative basis for denial. 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's 
enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The director's decision to approve the petition is withdrawn. The petition is denied.