dismissed EB-2 Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: 
NOV 1 3 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrativ e Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision . The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 
C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
4 
' ( 
~os~erg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director , Texas 
Service Center (Director). The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Chief, 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), on the ground that the petitioner failed to respond to a Notice 
oflntent to Deny and Request for Evidence (NOID/RFE) issued by the AAO. Upon discovering that 
the petitioner did respond to the NOID/RFE , the AAO reopened the proceeding by service motion. 
The appeal is again before the 
AAO, and will be dismissed on the merits. 
The petitioner describes itself as a clinical information technology company. It seeks to permanently 
employ the beneficiary in the United States as a senior software developer and to classify him 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 
requested preference classification and the terms of the labor certification . 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The petitioner filed its Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on October 29, 2012. As 
required by statute , the petition was accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent 
Employment Certification, which was filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on May 4, 
2012 , and certified by the DOL (labor certification) on August 17, 2012. 
Part H of the labor certification sets forth the following minimum requirements for the job offered : 
4. Education: Minimum level required: 
4-B. Major Field of Study: 
5. Training: 
6. Experience in the Job Offered: 
7. Alternate Field of Study: 
7-A. Alternate Field(s) of Study: 
8. Alternate Combination ofEducation and Experience: 
9. Foreign Educational Equivalent 
10. Experience in an Alternate Occupation 
Master's degree 
Computer Science, 
Electrical Engineering, 
Engineering, or related field 
None required 
None required 
Acceptable 
listed above at 4-B. 
Not acceptable 
Acceptable 
Not acceptable 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Part J of the labor certification states that the beneficiary has a master's degree in the fields of 
information technology, system integration and project management from the 
completed in 2005. 
As evidence of the beneficiary's educational credentials the petitioner submitted the following 
documentation with the Form I-140: 
• A diploma and transcripts from India, showing that 
the beneficiary received a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science on December 30, 
2002, following completion of a three-year degree program in the years 1999-2002. 
• A dioloma. transcripts, and an attestation from the _ 
, a French grande ecole, showing that the beneficiary received a "Degree 
Certificate" of "MSc Mastere en Sciences, Master of Science in Information Technology, 
major in System Integration & Project Management" on November 24, 2005, following 
completion of two semesters of coursework in 2002-2003 and internships with two 
private companies in the years 2003-2005. 
On November 18, 2013, the Director denied 
the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary has a U.S. master's degree or a foreign equivalent degree. In particular, 
the Director determined that the beneficiary's Bachelor of Science from is 
equivalent to three years of university study in the United States, and that his "Mast ere en Sciences, 
Master of Science in Information Technology" from the French grande ecole, is not 
equivalent to a U.S. master's degree in that field of study. 
The petitioner filed a timely appeal, supplemented by a brief from counsel and supporting 
documentation. We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. Department of 
Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). We consider all pertinent evidence in the record, 
including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal.1 
On March 25, 2014, we issued a Request for Evidence and Notice oflntent to Dismiss (RFE/NOID), 
which afforded the petitioner 45 days to submit additional evidence of (1) the beneficiary's 
educational qualifications, and (2) the petitioner's continuing ability to pay the proffered wage of the 
job offered from the priority date of the instant petition (May 4, 2012, the date the underlying labor 
certification application was accepted for processing by the DOL) up to the present. Following a 
request from the petitioner's counsel for an extension of the response period, we issued a second 
RFE/NOID on May 13, 2014, affording the petitioner 30 days to respond. On June 20, 2014, we 
summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had not responded to the 
RFE/NOID of May 13, 2014. However, it subsequently came to our attention that the petitioner did 
respond to the NOID in a timely manner - on June 11, 2014 - with a letter from counsel and 
additional evidence. Therefore, on August 8, 2014 we issued a Notice of Sua Sponte Reopening, 
1 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, which 
are incorporated into the regulations by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
advising the petitioner that the proceeding was being reopened on service motion and that an 
additional brief could be filed, at the petitioner's discretion, within 30 days. No such brief was 
received from the petitioner. Accordingly, the record in this proceeding is now complete. 
Based on the entire record, including the documentation submitted in response to our RFE/NOID, 
we determine that the petitioner has established its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage of 
$76,315.20 per year (as stated in Part G ofthe ETA Form 9089) from the priority date, May 4, 2012, 
up to the present. 
The remaining issues on appeal are the following: 
• Are the beneficiary's educational credentials, individually or collectively, equivalent 
to a U.S. master's degree, which would make him eligible for classification as an 
advanced degree professional under section 203(b)(2) ofthe Act? 
• Does the beneficiary meet the job requirements set forth on the labor certification, which 
would qualify him for the proffered position? 
LAW AND ANALYSIS 
The Roles of the DOL and US CIS in the Immigrant Visa Process 
As indicated above, the ETA Form 9089 in this case is certified by the DOL. The DOL's role is limited 
to determining whether (1) there are sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified and available, 
and (2) whether the employment of the alien will adversely affect the wages and working conditions of 
workers in the United States similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. 
§ 656.1(a). It is the responsibility of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to 
determine whether the offered position and the beneficiary are eligible for the requested preference 
classification, and whether the beneficiary satisfies the minimum requirements of the offered 
position as set forth on the labor certification. See Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd v. Feldman , 
736 F. 2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984); Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 
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.P.R. § 204.5(k)(1). 
The terms "advanced degree" and "profession" are defined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The regulatory 
language reads as follows: 
Advanced degree means any 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 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON~P RECEDENT DECISION 
a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a 
United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Profession means 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 in section 101 ( a)(32) of the Act are "architects , engineers, lawyers, 
physicians , surgeons , and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges , 
academies, or 
seminaries. "] 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i) states that a petition for an advanced degree professional 
must be accompanied by: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree ; or 
(B) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of 
letters from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least five 
years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
In addition, the job offer portion of the labor certification must require a professional holding an 
advanced degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(i). 
Therefore, a petition for an advanced degree professional 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. Furthermore, an "advanced degree" is either (1) 
a U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above a baccalaureate, or (2) a 
U.S. baccalaureate or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty. 
As previously discussed , the beneficiary has two academic degrees, including (1) a three-year Bachelor 
of Science in Computer Science from India, and (2) a "Mastere en 
Sciences, Master of Science in Information Technology" from a grande ecole in France. 
Among the materials submitted by the petitioner is a website excerpt from which explains its 
"Master of Science " degree program, in pertinent part, as follows: 
This international program is designed for international students with a bachelor's 
degree and is opened to high potential international young engineers who are keen to 
study in France and develop knowledge and skills for an international career in 
engineering and in new information technologies . 
offers 2 international MSc programs taught in English: 
[including] MSc in Information Technology (MSc IT) ..... 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Each program lasts two academic semesters (with courses entirely taught in English) 
followed by an internship in a company lasting from 5 months up to 12 months. 
See 
--·~---------------------------~--~ 
In his denial decision of November 18, 2013, the Director utilized the Electronic Database for Global 
Education (EDGE), a database created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and 
Admissions Officers (AACRAO), as a primary resource for determining the U.S. equivalency of the 
beneficiary's foreign degrees. According to its website, \vww.accrao.org, AACRAO is "a nonprofit, 
voluntary, professional association of more than 11,000 higher education admissions and registration 
professionals who represent approximately 2,600 institutions in over 40 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." !d. EDGE, as stated on 
its registration page, 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 must 
work with a publication consultant and a Council Liaison with AACRAO's National Council on the 
Evaluation of Foreign Educational Credentials. "An Author's Guide to Creating AACRAO 
International Publications" 5-6 (First ed. 2005), available for download at 
W\\'W.aacrao.org/publications/guide to creating international publications.pdf. 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. at 11-12. USCIS considers EDGE to 
be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of information about foreign degree equivalencies. 2 
With regard to the beneficiary 's degrees, EDGE indicates that a three-year Bachelor of Science 
degree in India is comparable to three years of study at a college or university in the United States. 
Thus, a three-year Bachelor of Science in India is not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, which 
generally requires four years of undergraduate study. See Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1977). Even if it were combined with five years of post-graduate experience in the 
specialty, therefore, the beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Science from 
could not meet the definitional qualification for an advanced degree under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 In Confluence Intern., 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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had properly weighed the evaluations 
submitted and the information obtained from EDGE to conclude that the alien'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 alien'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 itself required a degree and did not allow for the combination of education and experience . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 7 
With 
regard to the beneficiary's other degree- the "MSc Mastere en Sciences, Master of Science in 
Information Technology" from - EDGE does not have information specific to that credential. 
However, it does have three listings for the degree of "Mastere" in France. They include: 
• Mastere-
Described as two years of post-graduate study at a grande ecole. The entry 
requirement is the completion of a grande ecole program and three years of professional 
expenence. 
• Mastere Specialisee I MS-
Described as one year of post-graduate study at a grand ecole. The entry requirement is 
the completion of a grand ecole program and three years of professional experience. 
• Mastere Professionnel-
Described as one year of post-graduate coursework and an internship in a professional 
field. The entry requirement is a Maitrise or a diplome from a grande ecole. 
According to EDGE, all three of the Mastere degrees listed in its database are comparable to a 
master's degree in the United States. 
In comparing 
the above degree programs to the beneficiary's Mastere en Sciences, we note that they 
all have more extensive entry requirements than the beneficiary's own qualifications upon entering 
the Mastere en Sciences program. For example, the Mastere and Mastere Specialisee both require a 
completed grande ecole program, 3 which entails five years of post-secondary study. See 
http://cdge.aacrao.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/bolognalpdf. They also require three years of 
professional experience. By comparison, the beneficiary entered the Mastere en Sciences program 
with only three years of post-secondary study (at and no professional 
experience. The Mastere Professionnel degree program requires either a diplome from a grande 
ecole (five years of post-graduate study) or a Maitrise, an old (pre-Bologna) degree that required 
four years of post-graduate study. See http://edge.aacrao.org/wp-content/uploads/20 12/04/pre­
bologna /pdf. While these entry requirements are less than those for a Mastere or a Mastere 
3 Grandes ecoles are elite schools that operate parallel to France's universities. In comparison to the country's 
universities, which are comprehensive educational institutions covering a wide range of fields, the grandes 
ecoles are smaller in size and narrower in focus, supplying France with engineers, industrial research 
specialists, managers and administrators. To earn a diplome from a grande ecole a student must complete five 
years of post-secondary studies following the baccalaureat (equivalent to a U.S. high school education). The 
first two years of study are called "classes preparatoire aux grandes ecoles" (CPGE) and are completed either 
at a grande ecole or at a lycee (French high school). At the end of the two-year CPGE program students must 
pass a highly competitive examination (le concours) to gain admittance into a grande ecole for three years of 
additional coursework. See http://edge.aacrao.org/country/overview/france-overview. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 8 
Specialisee, they still exceed the beneficiary's qualifications (three years of post-graduate study) 
when he entered the Mastere en Sciences program. 
In summation , all three Mastere degrees listed in EDGE require more years of post-secondary study . 
for entry into the program than the Mastere en Sciences (generally by two years, but possibly one). 
In addition, two of the three Mastere degrees listed in EDGE have a three-year professional 
experience requirement which evidently does not exist for the Mastere en Sciences program. 
Furthermore , the total years of post-graduate study represented by the completed Mastere degrees 
listed in EDGE all exceed those of the beneficiary's Mastere en Sciences. While the beneficiary has 
four years of post-graduate study (three in India and one in France with his Mastere en Sciences) 
plus two internships with private companies, a Mastere degree holder would have seven years of 
post-graduate study, a Mastere Specialisee degree holder would have six years of post-graduate 
study, and a Mastere Professionnel degree holder would have five or six years of post-graduate 
study and an internship in a professional field. 
Therefore, we conclude that a Mastere en Sciences is different from other Mastere degrees in the 
French educational system. The program was created specifically for international students, it is 
taught exclusively in English, its entry requirements are less than those for other Mastere degree 
programs, and the degree incorporates fewer years of academic study than other Mastere degrees. 
Accordingly, we determine that the EDGE credential advice for other Mastere degrees in France­
that they are each comparable to a U.S. master's degree- is inapplicable to the Master en Sciences 
degree held by the beneficiary in this case. · 
The etitioner has submitted evaluations of the beneficiary's educational credentials from 
_ dated January 28, 2013 
(superceding a virtually identical evaluation dated July 28, 2011); and from a 
computer professor at , dated December 16, 2013. 
The evaluations assert that that beneficiary has the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in 
information systems. We do not agree. 
The evaluation finds that the beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Science degree in 
computer science from in India is equivalent to three years of study in that 
field at a U.S. college or university. notes that this finding accords with the EDGE 
credential advice for three-year Bachelor of Science degrees from Indian universities. 
then reviews the beneficiary's coursework in his Mastere en Sciences program at which 
totaled one academic year, and finds that his degree (without any reference to the beneficiary ' s 
internships with two private companies) is equivalent to a two-year master of science in computer 
systems from an accredited U.S. university. claims that this finding accords with the 
EDGE credential advice for Mastere degrees in France. The evidence of record does not support 
this claim. As previously discussed, there is no specific entry for the Mastere en Sciences in EDGE. 
Moreover, the Mastere en Sciences is not comparable to other Mastere degrees in France because the 
program is specifically for international students, is instructed in English, and requires fewer years of 
post-secondary study to enter the program. A Mastere en Sciences can be obtained with fewer 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
overall years of post-secondary coursework (four in the beneficiary's case) than with any of the 
Mastere degrees listed in EDGE. In our view, therefore, the evaluation is flawed. 
users uses evaluations of a person's foreign education by credentials evaluation organizations as 
advisory opinions 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. See Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988). Due to the shortcomings discussed above, we conclude that the 
evaluation has little probative value as evidence that the beneficiary's Mastere en Sciences is 
equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. 
The evaluation of Prof. finds that the beneficiary's Mastere en Sciences 
degree from is directly equivalent to a U.S. master of science in computer information systems 
-i.e . a single-source equivalent to a U.S. master's degree regardless of the beneficiary's underlying 
bachelor-level credentials . Prof. reviews the beneficiary's curriculum at and concludes 
that the courseload is comparable to U.S. master's degree programs at schools such as 
. According to Prof. 
his assessment of the U.S. equivalency of the beneficiary's Mastere en Sciences accords with 
the EDGE entries for Mastere degrees, all of which are rated as comparable to master's degrees in 
the United States. Prof. cites a U.S. Department of Education (DoE) publication- "Mapping 
the World of Education : Comparative Database System" (attached to the evaluation) - which 
categorizes Mastere degrees from grande ecoles in the fields of engineering and business 
administration as "advanced Graduate-Level Programs" that involve at least two years of study 
beyond a first degree or one year beyond a second degree and "constitute a level of attainment 
beyond that of a second degree but not equivalent to a research doctorate." 
Prof. evaluation is unpersuasive. Like evaluation fails to acknowledge 
the fact that the Mastere en Sciences degree is not specifically listed in EDGE, and is substantively 
different in important respects from the other Mastere degrees that are individually listed in EDGE. 
As discussed above, the Mastere en Sciences degree program is specifically for international 
students, the courses are instructed exclusively in English, and fewer years of post-secondary study 
are required to enter the program. Thus, the U.S. equivalency for each of the three Mastere degrees 
listed in EDGE ("comparable to a master's degree") does not apply to the Mastere en Sciences. 
Similarly, the DoE publication surveying academic degrees worldwide has an entry for Mastere 
degrees generally that does not appear to apply to the offshoot category of Mastere en Sciences. 
Prof. has not shown how the excerpt he cites from the DoE publication on "Mastere" applies 
to the beneficary's Mastere en Sciences. Like the evaluation, therefore, Prof. 
evaluation is flawed. 
users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
When opinions are not in accord with other information or are in any way questionable, however, 
USCIS is not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. See Matter of Caron 
International , 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988). See also Matter of D-R-, 25 I&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). Due to the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
shortcomings discussed above, we conclude that the evaluation authored by Prof. has limited 
evidentiary weight. It does not constitute persuasive evidence that the beneficiary's Mastere en 
Sciences is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to establish that the 
beneficiary's Master en Sciences is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. 
We reach no conclusion in this proceeding as to whether the beneficiary's Mastere en Sciences is 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Even if we made such a determination, however, the degree 
could not be combined with five years of qualifying post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty to 
make the beneficiary eligible for classification as an advanced degree professional because the labor 
certification specifies that a master's degree is required and does not allow for any alternate 
combination of education and experience. 
Thus, the petitioner has failed to establish the beneficiary's eligiblilty for classification as an 
advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the Act based on his Mastere en Sciences 
from France. Accordingly, the petition cannot be approved. 
Qualifications for the Job Offered 
To be eligible for approval under the immigrant visa petition, the beneficiary must have all the 
education, training, and experience specified on the underlying labor certification as of the petition's 
priority date, which is the date the labor certification application was accepted for processing by the 
DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d); Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N 158 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977).4 
In this case, the priority date is May 4, 2012. The petition cannot be approved unless the beneficiary 
qualifies for the proffered position under the terms of the labor certification. 
Relying in part on Madany, 696 F.2d at 1008, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit (Ninth Circuit) stated: 
[I]t appears that the DOL is responsible only for determining the availability of 
suitable American workers for a job and the impact of alien employment upon the 
domestic labor market. It does not appear that the DOL's role extends to determining 
if the alien is qualified for the job for which he seeks sixth preference [immigrant visa 
category] status. That determination appears to be delegated to the INS5 under 
section 204(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b), as one of the determinations incident to the INS's 
decision whether the alien is entitled to sixth preference status. 
4 
If the petition is approved, the priority date is also used in conjunction with the Visa Bulletin issued by the 
Department of State to determine when a beneficiary can apply for adjustment of status or for an immigrant visa 
abroad. 
5 The INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) was succeeded by USCIS when the Homeland Security 
Act of2002 took effect on March 1, 2003. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 11 
K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1983). The court relied on an amicus brief 
from DOL that stated the following: 
The labor certification made by the Secretary of Labor . . . pursuant to section 
212(a)[(5)] of the ... [Act] ... is binding as to the findings of whether there are able, 
willing, qualified, and available United States workers for the job offered to the alien, 
and whether employment of the alien under the terms set by the employer would 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed United 
States workers. The labor 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.) Id at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citing K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006, revisited 
this issue, stating: "The INS, therefore, may make a de novo determination of whether the alien is in 
fact qualified to fill the certified job offer." Tongatapu, 736 F. 2d at 1309. 
The key to determining the job qualifications is found in Part H of the ETA Form 9089. This part of 
the application describes the terms and conditions of the job offered. It is important that the ETA 
Form 9089 be read as a whole. 
When determining whether a beneficiary is eligible for a preference immigrant visa, USCIS may not 
ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional requirements . See Madany, 696 
F .2d at 1 015. USC IS must examine "the language of the labor certification job requirements" in 
order to determine what the job requires. !d. 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. See 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 alien employment 
certification application form. !d. at 834. USCIS cannot and should not reasonably be expected to 
look beyond the plain language of the labor certification that the DOL has formally issued or 
otherwise attempt to divine the employer's intentions through some sort of reverse engineering of the 
labor certification. 
Regarding the minimum level of education, trammg, and experience required for the proffered 
position of senior software developer, the ETA Form 9089 states the following: 
• The minimum educational requirement is a master's degree in computer science, 
electrical engineering, engineering, or a related field, or a "foreign educational 
equivalent" (Part H, lines 4, 4-B, 7, 7-A, and 9). 
• There are no minimum training or experience requirements (Part H, lines 5, 6, and 
10). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The terms of the labor certification are clear. The employer specified that a master's degree or a 
foreign equivalent in computer science, electrical engineering, engineering, or a related field is 
required for the proffered position. The beneficiary's highest post-secondary degree is a "Mastere en 
Sciences, Master of Science in Information Technology " from , a French grande ecole, awarded 
after one academic year of cousework and internships with two companies in France. As previously 
discussed in this decision, we have concluded that the Mastere en Sciences is not equivalent to a 
U.S. master's degree. Since the beneficiary does not have a "foreign educational equivalent" to a 
U.S. master's degree, he does not qualify for the proffered position of senior software developer 
under the terms of the labor certification. For this reason as well, the petition cannot be approved. 
Conclusion 
Based on the foregoing analysis, we find that the petition is deniable on the following grounds : 
• The beneficiary is not eligible for classification as an advanced degree professional 
under section 203(b)(2) of the Act because he does not have a U.S. master's degree in 
computer science, electrical engineering
, engineering, or a related field, or a foreign 
equivalent degree. 
• The beneficiary does does not qualify for the proffered position under the terms of the 
labor certification, which require a U.S. master's degree in computer science, 
electrical engineering, engineering, or a related field, or a foreign educational 
equivalent. 
For the above stated reasons, considered both in sum and as separate grounds for denial, the petition 
may not be approved. Accordingly , the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings , it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 
128 (BIA 2013). The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed