dismissed EB-2 Case: Information Technology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdrninistrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
LIN 07 263 55143 
 Date: JAN 2 1 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. 5 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 9 103.5 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 or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner claims to provide data processing services. 
 It seeks to permanently employ the 
beneficiary in the United States as a "senior financial services database applications 
engineerlarchitect." 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. 
5 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). 
As set forth in the director's July 7, 2008 denial, the primary issue on appeal is whether the 
beneficiary possesses a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate. 
The record shows that the appeal is properly filed, timely and makes a specific allegation of error in 
law or fact. The procedural history in this case is documented by the record and incorporated into 
the decision. Further elaboration of the procedural history will be made only as necessary. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 9 557(b); see 
also Junka v. US. Dept. of Trunsp., 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo 
authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 
9 (2d Cir. 1989). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence 
properly submitted upon appeal.2 
The priority date of instant petition is April 1, 2004, the date the labor certification was filed with the 
DOL. See 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(d). On the petition, the petitioner claimed to have been established in 
1963, to have a gross annual income of approximately $58 million, and to employ 235 workers. The 
proffered wage stated on the labor certification is $74,412.00 per year. 
Section 203(b)(2) of the Act provides immigrant classification to members of the professions holding 
advanced degrees or their equivalent and whose services are sought by an employer in the United 
States. In order to classify the beneficiary in this employment-based preference category, the 
1 
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 
The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to Form I-290B, 
which are incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(l). The record in the instant case 
provides no reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents newly submitted on appeal. 
See Mutter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
Page 3 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is an advanced degree professional. 
 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 follows: 
[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 beneficiary possesses a three-year bachelor of science degree from the University of Deli, India, 
and is a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). 
The ~etitioner submitted an evaluation of the beneficiarv's credentials with the ~etition vre~ared bv 
. . 
- of The Foundation for ~nternational Services, Inc. states that the 
beneficiary's three-year baccalaureate is equivalent to three years of post-secondary education 
towards a U.S. bachelor's degree. concludes that the petitioner is an ICAI fellow, which 
is equivalent to a bachelor's degree in accounting from a regionally accredited college or university 
in the United States. 
The director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) the petition, stating that the beneficiary's 
ICAI fellowship constitutes membership in a professional organization, but is not equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree. In response to the NOID, the petitioner submitted the following additional 
evaluations of the beneficiary's academic credentials: 
- of The Tnlstforte Corporation states that the beneficiary's three-year 
baccalaureate is equivalent to three years of study towards a U.S. bachelor's degree, and 
concludes that the combination of the beneficiary's three-year degree and ICAI fellowship is 
equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate in accounting. 
of e-ValReports states that the combination of the beneficiary's three- 
year baccalaureate and ICAI fellowship is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate in accounting, 
and that the beneficiary's ICAI Certificate of Practice is equivalent to certification as a public 
accountant in the United States. 
Response memorandum of - of The Foundation for International 
Services, Inc., confirming and elaborating on her in~tial evaluation. 
Following the director's denial of the petition, counsel submits the following additional evidence on 
appeal: 
Evaluation of the beneficiary's credentials, prepared by and - 
of 
 for the Washington Board of Accountancy. The evaluation 
states that the beneficiary's three-year baccalaureate is equivalent to three years of post- 
secondary education towards a U.S. bachelor's degree. The evaluation further states that the 
beneficiary's ICAI fellowship is equivalent to an additional 61.75 undergraduate semester 
credit hours, and concludes that the combination of the beneficiary's three-year baccalaureate 
degree and ICAI fellowship is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's of business administration in 
accounting. 
Report from the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), created by the American 
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), stating that the 
beneficiary's passage of the ICAI final examination and association membership "represents 
attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States." 
Counsel does not claim that the beneficiary's three year degree is a foreign equivalent degree to a 
U.S. baccalaureate. Instead, at issue is whether the beneficiary's ICAI fellowship is a foreign 
equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate. 
As is explained below, the beneficiary's ICAI fellowship is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, 
however, it is not a "foreign equivalent degree" as required by 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(k)(2). 
For the requested classification of advanced degree professional, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requires the submission of an "official academic record showing that the alien 
has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree."3 (Emphasis added.) 
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, 1 99 1). 
While ICAI may offer courses and examinations, there is no evidence that ICAI is a college or 
university or that membership is a "degree." See Snapnarnes.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, 2006 
WL 3491005 "1 1 (D. Ore. Nov. 30, 2006) (finding USCIS was justified in concluding that ICAI 
membership was not a college or university "degree" for purposes of classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree). 
Because the beneficiary does not have a "United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree" from a college or university the beneficiary does not qualify for preference visa 
classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Act as he does not have the minimum level of education 
required for the equivalent of an advanced degree. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. fj 136 1. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
3~or classification as a member of the professions, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) 
requires the submission of "an official college or university record showing the date the 
baccalaureate degree was awarded and the area of concentration of study." We cannot conclude that 
the evidence required to demonstrate that an alien is an advanced degree professional is any less than 
the evidence required to show that the alien is a professional. To do so would undermine the 
congressionally mandated classification scheme by allowing a lesser evidentiary standard for the 
more restrictive visa classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.