dismissed EB-2 Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 2, 2024 In Re: 30415536 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Advanced Degree) 
The Petitioner, an information and technology services business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
database administrator under the employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish the Beneficiary alternatively met the advanced degree requirements through five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience at the time of filing the labor certification. Subsequently, 
the Director granted the Petitioner's combined motion to reopen and reconsider and issued a new 
decision affirming the denial of the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer obtains an 
approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 1 See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). By approving the labor certification, the DOL certifies that 
there are insufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available for the offered 
position and that employing a foreign national in the position will not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II) of the 
Act. Second, the employer files an immigrant visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, ifUSCIS approves the petition, 
1 The priority date of a petition is the date the DOL accepted the labor certification for processing, which in this case is 
May 15, 2019. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(d). 
the foreign national applies for an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, adjustment of status in the 
United States. See section 245 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act grants preference classification to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the profession holding advanced degrees or their equivalent. See also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(l). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines an advanced degree as any U.S. academic or 
professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A U.S. 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. Id. Further, the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requires an official academic record showing a U.S. baccalaureate degree 
or foreign equivalent degree and evidence in the form of letters from current and former employers 
reflecting at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
A beneficiary must also have all the education, training, and experience specified on the labor 
certification as of the petition's priority date. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Wing's Tea 
House, 16 I&N 158 (Act. Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The labor certification indicates that the offered position requires at least a U.S. bachelor's degree, or 
foreign equivalent degree, in computer science, engineering, mathematics, business administration, or 
related quantitative field and at least 60 months of experience. The Petitioner also indicated the 
position could accept an alternate, related occupation with at least 60 months of experience. 
The record indicates the Beneficiary received a bachelor of engineering degree from thel I 
in India, satisfying a foreign equivalent degree. However, the Director determined that the record 
did not demonstrate the Beneficiary had the five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience 
required by the terms of the labor certification. Specifically, the Director found the Petitioner did not 
establish the Beneficiary received his foreign equivalent degree in 2005; rather than 2011, the issue 
date on the degree certificate. Thus, the Director concluded the Beneficiary only had approximately 
44 months of post-baccalaureate experience from February 2011, approximately 16 months short of 
the required minimum of 60 months of experience. 
The specific issue we must address is when the Beneficiary received his bachelor's degree from the 
I I 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director misapplied Matter of O-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-03 (AAO Apr. 17, 2017), in requiring the submission of a provisional certificate and "[t]he 
substantial evidence in the record clearly supports, by a preponderance of the evidence, the conclusion 
that the Beneficiary completed all degree requirements in November 2005, not nearly six years later 
in February 2011." For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary 
received his bachelor's degree in November 2005. 
2 
The statute and regulations governing this classification refer to a "degree," not a diploma. The "initial 
evidence" requirement for professionals under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) states that "[e]vidence 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." We have previously 
determined that an "official academic record" is not limited to a formal diploma. 2 
Accordingly, we must conduct a case-specific analysis to determine when the Beneficiary completed 
all substantive requirements to earn the degree and when the university approved the degree as 
demonstrated by an official academic record. When determining whether a document is an official 
academic record that substantiates a claimed degree, we may consider whether the document was 
issued by a university in the normal course of its business; whether the document was issued 
contemporaneous with events; and whether the document indicates that all degree requirements, not 
just the required coursework, have been completed. 3 
At the outset, although the Director indicated the Petitioner's failure to provide the Beneficiary's 
provisional certificate, Matter of O-A-, Inc. does not require such a submission. Rather, the adopted 
decision states that a provisional certificate will constitute the official academic record of a beneficiary's 
"degree" for purposes of calculating the five-year period of post-graduate experience, if a petitioner 
establishes that all the substantive requirements for the degree were met and that the degree was in fact 
approved by the responsible university body at the time a provisional certificate was issued. Matter ofO­
A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-03, at 4.4 When a petitioner submits a provisional certificate as 
evidence of a beneficiary's receipt of a degree, we consider evidence presented regarding the 
individual nature of each university's or college's requirements for each program of study and each 
student's completion of those requirements. A petitioner bears the burden to establish that a 
beneficiary's provisional certificate reflects that, at the time the certificate was issued, all the 
substantive requirements for the degree were met and the degree was in fact approved by the 
responsible college or university body. Id. 
Here, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has never received a provisional certificate. If he would 
have received one, then it could have been used in determining the five-year post-baccalaureate 
experience. Thus, we must conduct a case-specific analysis based on the submitted evidence to 
determine when the Beneficiary completed all substantive requirements to earn the degree and when 
the university approved the degree as demonstrated by an official academic record. 5 
The record contains a degree certificate from the stating that" ... having been 
examined and found duly qualified for the degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Instrumentation & 
Control) and placed in the Higher Second Class in November 2005. The said degree has been 
2 See Matter of O-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-03 at 3. 
3 See Matter of O-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-03 at 4. 
4 The provisional degree certificate in Matter of O-A-, Inc. was determined to be consistent with that described by The 
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education 
(EDGE), which states that a provisional degree certificate issued by an Indian university can provide "evidence of completion 
of all requirements for the degree in question ... and is comparable to an official U.S. academic transcript with a degree 
statement certifying completion of all requirements for the degree .... " See India: Provisional Degree Certificate, 
AA CRA O, https: //www.aacrao.org/ edge/ country/ credentials/ credential/india/provisional-degree-certificate. 
5 See Matter of O-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-03 at 4. 
3 
conferred on him." The degree certificate is signed by the vice chancellor and dated "9th February 
2011." The document indicates the Beneficiary "was placed in the Higher Second Class in November 
2005" rather than completing all substantive requirements and conferring his degree in November 
2005. 
Similarly, the record includes an examination document, dated June 12, 2006, from the controller of 
examinations indicating the Beneficiary "[p]assed the: B.E. (REV) (INSTRU. & CONTROL) 
examination held by _______ in the month ofNOV 2005 and was placed in HIGHER 
SECOND CLASS." Again, the document only shows the Beneficiary passing the examination in 
November 2005 and placing in the higher second class. Although the brief references Matter of 
Productivity Improvements, Inc., 87-INA-671 (Sept. 27, 1988) (finding no difference between 
receiving the degree and completing all the requirements for the degree), the Petitioner did not show 
the Beneficiary completed all substantive requirements and conferred his bachelor's degree in 
November 2005. In addition, the examination document does not indicate that the Beneficiary met all 
substantive requirements for his degree in November 2005 date or specify when the degree was 
approved by the university. Further, the record does not contain sufficient evidence corroborating the 
substantive requirements of the Beneficiary's specific program of study. Without such evidence, the 
record does not support the Petitioner's claims that the Beneficiary completed all substantive 
requirements, and that the university approved the issuance of his bachelor of engineering degree, in 
November 2005. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted a university-issued statement of marks from the I I 
indicating the Beneficiary's grades on examinations for each of the four years with each year 
showing two semesters. The statement of marks for the November 2005 examination was issued on 
June 12, 2006. However, the statement of marks does not demonstrate his completion of all degree 
requirements in November 2005. The document simply confirms when he took his examinations in 
each semester and indicates his last examination in November 2005; the Petitioner did not submit a 
consolidated statement of marks with additional relevant information, such as the date the university 
approved the degree. In addition, the statement of marks for the Beneficiary's final semester's 
examinations was issued in June 2006 and does not support a determination that the university 
approved his completion of all degree requirements in November 2005. The Petitioner has not 
provided an explanation for the seven-month delay between the date of the last semester examination 
and the final statement of marks. 
Moreover, the Petitioner provided a January 10, 2023 letter from the director of the board of 
examinations and evaluation for ___________ (formerly the I 
The letter claims the Beneficiary satisfied the requirements for the bachelor's degree in November 
2005, and both the June 12, 2006 and February 9, 2011 documents discussed above were issued by 
the university. The letter, written nearly 17 years after the Beneficiary's purported completion of the 
degree, was issued in response to the Beneficiary's inquiries, not in the university's normal course of 
business, and after the Director's decision and in support of the motion. Further, this letter is not an 
official academic record substantiating that the degree was awarded in November 2005. Although the 
letter states that the Beneficiary "was examined and found duly qualified for the said degree in the 
month of November 2005," the record otherwise lacks any evidence documenting the substantive 
requirements for the university's bachelor of engineering degree at the time of the Beneficiary's 
enrollment. Further, the letter does not explain why the Beneficiary was issued an examination 
4 
document in June 2006 when he purportedly conferred his bachelor's degree seven months earlier in 
November 2005. 
Finally, as additional proof that the Beneficiary conferred his degree in November 2005, the Petitioner 
cites to submitted evaluations of his educational credentials. The first evaluation from W-E- states 
that the Beneficiary's bachelor of engineering degree was awarded in 2005 and then generally 
discusses core curriculum of the I I However, the record does not support this 
statement and the evaluator does not explain how it reached this conclusion. As discussed above, the 
evidence indicates the Beneficiary passed his final semester examinations in November 2005, but it does 
not demonstrate that the degree was approved as completed and awarded by the university at that time. 
Again, the Petitioner has not explained the seven-month delay between the November 2005 examinations 
and the June 2006 examination document and the last statement of marks, and the record does not contain 
contemporaneous evidence indicating that the university approved the Beneficiary's completion of the 
degree in 2005. 
The second evaluation from R-K- states that the Beneficiary "passed all eight semesters" according to 
the statement of marks, and the Beneficiary "studied for eight semesters and completed his studies in 
November 2005." The issue here is not whether the Beneficiary completed all eight semesters or 
passed his final exam but when the Beneficiary completed all substantive requirements to earn the 
degree and when the university approved the degree. R-K- further claims that "[a]s evidenced by the 
diploma, upon his successful completion of the final examination in November 2005, [the Beneficiary] 
completed all final examinations and thus graduated from the program," and "[s ]ubsequent to that 
date, he was not required to, nor did he, complete any additional coursework towards her [sic] degree." 
Again, the diploma does not reflect the Beneficiary graduated from the program in November 2005 
rather than indicating the Beneficiary "was placed in the Higher Second Class in November 2005." 
Moreover, although the evaluation asserts that the Beneficiary was not required to complete any 
additional requirements, R-K- does not provide any corroborating information or evidence to support 
this assertion. The record lacks evidence documenting the substantive requirements for the 
university's bachelor of engineering degree at the time of the Beneficiary's enrollment. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an updated evaluation from R-K-. Because the Petitioner was put 
on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence and make these claims, we will 
not consider them for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l l) (requiring all requested 
evidence be submitted together at one time); Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) 
( declining to consider new evidence submitted on appeal because "the petitioner was put on notice of 
the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the 
denial"). 6 
Based on a case-specific analysis of the educational documentation submitted in support of the petition, 
we conclude that the evidence does not support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary was awarded 
6 Regardless, the evaluation makes claims not supported in the record. Specifically, the evaluation claims that "the final 
year marks statement explicitly affinns [the Beneficiary's] completion of the bachelor's degree" and "the official degree 
ceitificate ... explicitly states that [the Beneficiary] met all the requirements in November 2005." For the reasons 
discussed above, the statement of marks makes no indication of the Beneficiary completing the requirements for his 
bachelor's degree, nor does the degree ce1iificate reflect the Beneficiary met all the requirements in November 2005. The 
evaluator does not explain how he formed these conclusions. 
5 
his bachelor of engineering degree in November 2005 or any date prior to February 2011. The Petitioner 
has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's possession, by the petition's priority date, of the requisite five 
years of post-baccalaureate experience required for the offered position. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary satisfied all requirements 
stated on the labor certification as of the priority date. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6