dismissed EB-2 Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 2 7 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 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 Jaw nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO inconectly 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 (Fom1 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.F .R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
£t;( �-· 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC�ION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petltwn was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center (Director). It is now on appeal before the Chief, Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO). The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner describes itself as a business and information technology consulting company. It seeks to 
permanentlY employ the beneficiary in the United States as a "Lead Technical Consultant 
' 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). Under this statutory provision 
preference classification may be granted to members of the professions holding advanced degrees or 
their equivalent whose services are sought by an employer in the United States. 
At issue in this case is whether the beneficiary possesses the requisite education to qualify for the 
requested preference classification and meet the terms of the labor certification. 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, was filed on July 30, 2014. As required by 
statute, the petition was accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent 
Employment Certification, which had been filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on 
January 20, 2014, 1 and approved by the DOL on June 26, 2014. 
Part H of the labor certification states that the offered position has the following m1mmum 
requirements: 
H.4. 
H.5. 
H.6. 
H.7. 
H.8. 
H.9. 
H.lO. 
Education: Master's degree in Computer Science. 
Training: None required. 
Experience in the job offered: 12 months. 
Alternate field of study: IT, MIS, Business Administration, or related. 
Alternate combination of education and experience: None accepted 
Foreign educational equivalent: Accepted. 
Experience in an alternate occupation: Accepted. 
H.l4. Specific skills or other requirements: 
12 months in an occupation 
involving software development. 
[Specifed software languages and willingness 
to travel to client worksites in various states.] 
Part J of the labor certification states that the beneficiary earned a master's degree in information 
technology from the ------------ _________ --� -- __ _ _ . . , " . India, 
in 2007. The record contains copies of the beneficiary's transcripts and academic certificate from 
which show that the beneficiary completed a five-trimester academic program from January 2005 to 
1 This date - when the DOL accepted the labor certification application for processing - is also the priority 
date of the instant petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
(b)(6)
NON�P RECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
October 2006 and was issued a certificate on August 15, 2007, which stated the following: 
This is to certifY that [the beneficiary], having been examined for the MBA Program in 
Advanced Information Technology under the autonomous program of the 
and found qualified for the same, the said MBA 
Program Certificate in Advanced Information Technology has been awarded to him on 
the 15t h day of August 2007. 
The record also contains copies of the beneficiary's academic records from 
India, which show that the beneficiary was awarded a "Bachelor of Engineering 
(Information Technology)" on November 30, 2003, following completion of a four�year degree 
program in the years 1999�2003. 
As evidence of the U.S. equivalency of the beneficiary's Indian education, the record includes three 
reports from credential evaluation services asserting that the beneficiary's academic credential from the 
[n India is equivalent to a master's degree in business administration from a U.S. university. 
The Director issued a Request for Evidence on August 6, 2014, seeking additional documentation 
pertaining to the beneficiary's education. The petitioner responded on September 15, 2014, with a brief 
from counsel and additional evidence. 
On September 29, 20 14, the Director issued a decision denying the petition. The Director noted that 
the beneficiary cannot qualifY for classification as an advanced degree professional based on his 
Bachelor of Engineering degree and five years of progressive post�baccalaureate experience because 
the labor certification specifically requires a master's degree and does not allow for the alternate 
combination of a bachelor's degree and five years of qualifying experience. The Director found that 
the three credential evaluations submitted by the petitioner were less credible than the Educational 
Database for Global Education (EDGE), created by the American Association of Collegiate 
Registrars and Admissi ons Officers (AACRAO), with regard to the U.S. equivalency of the 
beneficiary's academic credential from the . The Director quoted language from EDGE stating 
that a Master of Business Administration in India is comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United 
States, not a master's degree, because the entrance requirement for an Indian MBA is a three-year 
bachelor's degree, not a four-year bachelor's degree which is the U.S. standard for entry into an 
MBA degree program. Finally, the Director found that the evidence of record failed to establish that 
was accredited by the An alien who does 
not receive a degree from an accredited institution, the Director concluded, does not qualify for 
classification as a professional (advanced degree or otherwise). 
The petitioner filed an appeal on October 30, 2014, which was supplemented by a brief from counsel 
and supporting documentation. The petitioner's appeal is properly filed and makes specific 
allegations of error in law and fact. We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
LAW AND ANALYSIS 
The Roles of the DOL and USCIS in the Immigrant Visa Process 
At the outset, it is important to discuss the respective roles of the DOL and U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) in the employment-based immigrant visa process. As noted above, the 
labor certification in this matter is certified by the DOL. The DOL's role in this process is set forth at 
section 212(a)(5) (A)(i) of the Act, which provides as follows: 
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 
(II) 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 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 tum, DOL has the authority 
to make the two determinations listed in section 212(a)(14). 2 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 
2 Based on revisions to the Act, the current citation is section 212(a)(S)(A). 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC�ION 
that it will then be "in a position to meet the requirement of the law," namely the 
section 212(a)(14) determinations. 
Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Relying in part on Madany, 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 [visa category] 
status. That determination appears to be delegated to the INS 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. 
K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1983). The court relied on an amicus brief 
from the DOL that stated the following: 
The labor certification made by the Secretary of Labor . . . pursuant to section 
212( 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 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 Department of Labor (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. § 212(a)(14), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14). The INS then makes its own 
determination of the alien's entitlement to sixth preference status. I d. § 204(b ), 
8 U.S.C. § 1154(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 (9th Cir. 1984). 
Therefore, it is the DOL's responsibility to determine whether there are qualified U.S. workers 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
available to perform the offered position, and whether the employment of the beneficiary will 
adversely affect similarly employed U.S. workers. It is the responsibility of USCIS to determine if 
the beneficiary qualifies for the offered position, and whether the offered position and beneficiary 
are eligible for the requested employment-based immigrant visa classification. 
Eligibility for the Classification Sought 
Section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 11 53(b)(2), provides immigrant classification to members of 
the professions holding advanced degrees. See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(l). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines the terms "advanced degree" and "profession. " An 
"advanced degree" is defined as: 
[A ]ny 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. 
A "profession" is defined as "one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation." The occupations listed at 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, an advanced degree professional petition 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. Further, an "advanced degree" is a U.S. academic or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC�ION 
Page 7 
professional degree (or a foreign equivalent degree) above a baccalaureate, or 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 possesses a four-year Bachelor of Engineering in 
and a five-trimester "MBA Program Certificate in Advanced 
Infmmation Technology" from Unlike the credential from which clearly 
identifies the beneficiary's educational credential as a bachelor's "degree" in engineering, the credential 
from does not identify the beneficiary's educational achievement as a master's degree, but rather as 
a "certificate" from the MBA program. Nor do the beneficiary's transcripts from indicate that the 
coursework was part of a degree program. 
As far as the record shows, lacked approval from the 
the time the beneficiary studied there in 2005-2006. 
Institutions Conducting Technical Programmes Without 
appears on that list? See =h=ttp=:"-/www.o...:....:...;_;_:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
at 
website includes a "Revised List of 
Approval" as of July 16, 2012. 
Thus, did not have approval in mid-2012. On appeal the petitioner has submitted the copy 
of a letter from . dated June 4, 2014, stating that approval was granted to for undergraduate 
courses in information technology for the academic year 2014-2015. This letter does not indicate that 
approval was granted to graduate studies in information technology, like those taken by 
the beneficiary to eam his MBA certificate in that field. The petitioner has also submitted an excerpt 
from current list of approved institutions, on which appears without further explanation. 
As late as January 2015, however, and its advanced information technology program do not appear 
on "List of Accredited Programmes in Technical Institutions." See http:/www.: 
___ (accessed January 15, 2015). Whatever the current 
status of may be with regard to institutional approval and program accreditation from It IS 
clear that had neither institutional approval nor program accreditation from during the time 
frame in which the beneficiary studied there and eamed his MBA certificate in information technology. 
The petitioner asserts that gained accreditation in India through its affiliation with the 
an institution recognized by On appeal the 
petitioner has submitted a printout from the 
_ 
website, dated November 12, 2014, 
which indicates that it affiliated with in 2004 and lists eighfapproved courses, all at the Ph.D. level. 
The petitioner has not explained how this information relates to the beneficiary, whose studies were 
at the MBA level, not the Ph.D. level. Nor does the record show that affiliation with the 
conferred any enhanced status upon the institution from The petitioner has 
submitted copies of agreements betwee and five U.S. universities, signed in the years 2003-2007, 
to develop educational exchanges and joint degree programs. Once again, the record does not show that 
affiliations with U.S. universities conferred any enhanced status upon the institution from 
The record demonstrates that was not an approved institution by at the time the 
beneficiary studied there and earned his MBA certificate in information technology. 
3 An earlier list from 
htt :/www 
dated September 22, 2011, also lists as an unapproved institution. See 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The was established in November as a "national level Apex Advisory Body to conduct 
survey[s] on the facilities on technical education and to promote development in the country in a 
coordinated and integrated manner." See http:// www (accessed 
January 15, 20 15). has the "statutory authority for planning, formulation and maintenance of 
norms and standards, quality assurance through accreditation, funding in priority areas, monitoring 
and evaluation, maintaining parity of certification and awards and ensuring coordinated and 
integrated development and management of technical education in the country." !d. As 
ensures the foundation of norms and standards in India, the educational value of an unapproved 
institution cannot be properly assessed. 
Based on the evidence of record, we conclude that had not conferred institutional approval 
upon or programm e accreditation upon its MBA advanced information technology program at 
the time the beneficiary was studying there in 2005 and 2006. The record is unclear as to whether 
such status has ever been conferred by If it has, such action appears to have been quite 
recent. In addition to the fact that the beneficiary studied at an unapproved institution in a course of 
study that lacked programme accreditation, the credential he earned from was not a master's 
degree in advanced information technology, but an "MBA Program Certificate in Advanced 
Information Technology." The record does not establish that this credential from is the same as a 
degree from an . approved institution. 
Even if we were persuaded that the beneficiary's "MBA Program Certificate" from is a bona 
fide degree from an institution with approval, we agree with the Director that it would not be 
equivalent to a master's degree from an accredited university in the United States. As discussed by 
the Director in the denial decision, the EDGE database4 rates a Master of Business Administration in 
India as comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. The reason for that assessment is 
that the entrance requirement for an MBA degree program in India is a three-year bachelor's degree 
(which is common in India), not a four-year bachelor's degree which is standard in the United States. 
A three-year bachelor's degree in India is rated by EDGE as comparable to three years of undergraduate 
study in the United States. The fact that the beneficiary had a four-year bachelor's degree is irrelevant. 
It does not elevate the Indian MBA that followed to the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree. 
4 USCLS utilizes the database (EDGE) created by AACRAO as a resource for determining the U.S. 
equivalency of foreign degrees. According to its website, AACRAO is "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional 
association of more than 11,000 higher education admissions and registration professionals who represent 
more than 2,600 institutions and agencies in the United States and in over 40 countries." 
http://www .aacrao.org/About-AACRAO.aspx. Its mission "is to serve and advance higher education by 
providing leadership in academic and enrollment services." Id. EDGE is "a web-based resource for the 
evaluation of foreign educational credentials." http://edge.aacrao.org/info.php. Authors for EDGE are not 
merely expressing their personal opinions. Rather, they must work with a publication consultant and a 
Council Liaison with AACRAO's National Council on the Evaluation of Foreign Educational Credentials.4 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. USCIS considers EDGE to be a reliable, peer­
reviewed source of information about foreign credentials equivalencies. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECI�ON 
Page 9 
On appeal the petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was based on the mistaken conclusion that 
the beneficiary's bachelor's degree from which preceded his MBA program at 
was a three-year degree rather than a four-year degree. No such mistake was made by the 
Director, whose determination that the beneficiary's MBA credential is not equivalent to a U.S. 
master's degree was not based on a finding that the beneficiary only had a three-year bachelor's degree. 
Rather, the Director's decision was based on the credential advice in EDGE, which in turn was based on 
the fact that a three-year bachelor's degree is all that was required to enter an Indian MBA program. As 
previously stated, the fact that the beneficiary had a four-year Bachelor of Engineering degree in 
Information Technology was irrelevant to the U.S. equivalency of a follow-on MBA. 
The petitioner cites an excerpt from an at the Nebraska Service 
Center (NSC) on April 15, 2007, at which NSC officials reputedly indicated that a four-year bachelor's 
degree in India followed by a two-year master's degree in the same or a related field would generally be 
considered equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. That scenario does not necessarily apply to this case, 
however, because the meeting notes do not state that U.S. master's degree equivalency would still apply 
if a four-year bachelor's degree is not required to enter the two-year master's degree program. 
Moreover, this document from the is not binding on us. 
We are bound by the Act, agency regulations, precedent decisions of the agency and published 
decisions from the federal circuit court of appeals from the circuit in which the action arose. See 
N.L.R.B. v. Ashkenazy Property Management Corp., 817 F.2d 74, 75 (9th Cir. 1987) (administrative 
agencies are not free to refuse to follow precedent in cases originating within the circuit); R.L. Jnv. 
Ltd. Partners v. INS, 86 F.Supp. 2d 1014, 1022 (D. Haw. 2000), aff'd, 273 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 200 1) 
(unpublished agency decisions and agency legal memoranda are not binding under the AP A 
(Administrative Procedures Act), even when they are published in private publications or widely 
circulated). Even USCIS internal memoranda do not establish judicially enforceable rights. See 
Loa-Herrera v. Trominski, 231 F.3d 984, 989 (5th Cir. 2000) (An agency's internal guidelines 
"neither confer upon [plaintiffs] substantive rights nor provide procedures upon which [they] may 
rely.") 
The petitioner charges that the Director overlooked the previously submitted credential evaluation 
reports from ·� --�----- 0 ---- � .. 
----------------�--�--------
' and 
_ 
These reports concluded that 
the beneficiary's educational credentials from were equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree in engineering or computer science and a U.S. master's degree in business 
administration. We agree with the evaluation of the bachelor's degree, which accords with the 
credential advice in EDGE stating that a four-year Bachelor of Engineering Degree in India is 
comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. With respect to the beneficiary's credential 
from however, none of the three evaluation services considered the fact that it is called a 
"certificate" rather than a degree and that it was issued by an institution that lacked approval. 
Failing to address these threshold issues fundamentally undermines the credibility of the credential 
evaluations. 
Evaluations of a person's foreign education by credentials evaluation organizations are utilized by 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
USCIS as advisory opinions only. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it or may give it less weight. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988); see also Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
81 7 (Comm. 1988). In accordance with the above discussion, we determine that the and 
evaluations have little probative value with respect to the beneficiary's educational 
credential from in India. They are not persuasive evidence that the beneficiary's "MBA 
Program Certificate in Information Technology" from is equivalent to an MBA degree from a 
U.S. university. 
The petitioner asserts that the Director committed a mistake of law by requiring the beneficiary to 
have a master's degree from an accredited institution since the pertinent regulations do not specify 
that a degree must come from an accredited institution to qualify a beneficiary for EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional, unlike the regulations for H -1 B (specialty worker) 
petitions which do specify that a baccalaureate degree must come from an accredited college or 
university to qualify the beneficiary for the requested classification. We are not persuaded by 
counsel's implication that lack of approval when the beneficiary studied there is 
irrelevant to this petition. Since ensures the foundation of norms and standards of technical 
education in India, the educational value of an unapproved institution - like at the time of the 
beneficiary's MBA program studies in the years 2005-2007 - cannot be properly assessed. An 
educational credential from a technical institution that is not approved by therefore, lacks 
academic weight. The lack of academic weight in this case is reflected by the fact that the 
beneficiary's credential from is not called a master's degree in business administration, but 
rather an "MBA Program Certificate. " This credential does not satisfy the regulatory requirement at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k) (3)(i)(A), which states that the beneficiary must have "a United States advanced 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree" (emphasis added) - not some sort of lesser credential. Based 
on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that no mistake of law was made by the Director in requiring 
that be approved by 
For all of the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary has 
earned a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. master of business administration. The evidence of record 
fails to establish that the beneficiary's educational credential from - an "MBA Program Certificate 
in Advanced Information Technology"- is a formal degree from an approved institution. Even 
if the beneficiary's credential were a bonafide MBA degree, it would not be equivalent to a U.S. MBA 
because the entry requirement for an MBA program in India is only a three-year bachelor's degree 
(comparable to three years of undergraduate study in the United States), not a four-year bachelor's 
degree which is the U.S. standard. Thus, the beneficiary is not eligible for classification as an advanced 
degree professional under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A) because he does not possess "a United States 
advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 
While the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) prescribes that "a U.S. baccalaureate degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree, and .. . at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the 
specialty" would also make an alien eligible for classification as an advanced degree professional, the 
record does not show that the beneficiary meets these criteria. As previously discussed, the beneficiary 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
does satisfy the first element because his four-year Bachelor of Engineering degree from 
. is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree. He does not satisfy the second element, however, 
because his only qualifying work experience - with 
lasted just under four years, as indicated on the labor certification.5 
Thus, the beneficiary is not eligible for classification as an advanced degree professional under section 
203(b)(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the petition cannot be approved. 
The Minimum Requirements of the Offered Position 
Aside from classification eligibility, the petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary satisfied 
all of the educational, training, experience and any other requirements of the offered position by the 
priority date. See 8 e .F.R . § 103.2(b)(l), (12). See also Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 r&N Dec. 
158, 159 (Act. Reg. eomm. 1977); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 r&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. eomm. 1971). 
In evaluating the job offer portion of the labor certification to determine the required qualifications 
for the position, users may not ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional 
requirements. See Madany, 696 F.2d at 1008; K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006; Stewart Infra­
Red Commissary of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1 (1st eir. 1981). Where the job 
requirements in a labor certification are not otherwise unambiguously prescribed, e.g., by regulation, 
users must examine "the language of the labor certification job requirements" in order to determine 
what the petitioner must demonstrate about the beneficiary's qualifications. Madany, 696 F.2d at 
1015. The only rational manner by which users 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." Rosedale Linden Park Company v. 
Smith, 595 F. Supp. 829, 833 (D.D.e. 1984)(emphasis added). USerS's interpretation of the job's 
requirements, as stated on the labor certification must involve "reading and applying the plain 
language of the [labor Certification]. II !d. at 834 (emphasis added). users cannot and should not 
reasonably be expected to look beyond the plain language of the labor certification or otherwise 
attempt to divine the employer's intentions through some sort of reverse engineering of the labor 
certification. Even though the labor certification may be prepared with the beneficiary in mind, users 
has an independent role in determining whether the beneficiary meets the labor certification 
requirements. See Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 *7 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 
2006). 
5 The record includes copies of letters from two other Indian companies that also claim to have employed the 
beneficiary. The first, from m _, states that the 
beneficiary was employed as a software developer from June 2, 2004 to December 10, 2004. The second, 
from f states that the beneficiary was employed 
as a software engineer from December 18, 2006 to October 30, 2007. Neither of these work experiences was 
listed on the labor certification, however, which lessens the credibility of the evidence and facts asserted. See 
Matter of Leung, 16l&N Dec. 2530 (BIA 1976). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
In the instant case, the labor certification states that the offered position requires a master's degree in 
computer science, IT, MIS, business administration, or a related field, or a foreign educational 
equivalent (Parts H.4 and H. 7 and H.9 of ETA Form 9089) plus 12 months of experience in the job 
offered or in an occupation involving software development (Parts H.6 and H. lO of ETA Form 9089). 
No alternate combination of education and experience is acceptable (Part H.8 of ETA Form 9089). 
The record in this case fails to show that the beneficiary has either a U.S. master's degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree. As previously discussed, the beneficiary's "MBA Program Certificate in Advanced 
Information Technology" does not appear to be a master's degree and the issuing institution-
was not an -approved institution when the certificate was issued. Moreover, even a full-fledged 
MBA in India - i.e. a degree issued by an educational institution with approval or 
recognition- is not equivalent to an MBA in the United States, as indicated in EDGE. Therefore, the 
beneficiary does not meet the educational requirement of the labor certification. 
With respect to the experience requirement, the record includes the copy of a letter from dated 
January 17, 20 13, stating that the beneficiary was a full.:time IT consultant ofthe company in 
India, from November 12, 2007 to October 28, 2011. The letter describes the job duties perfonned by 
the beneficiary as well as the technologies and tools he utilized. This letter, however, does not fully 
meet the substantive requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l ), which provides as follows: 
Evidence relating to qualifying experience or training shall be in the form of letter(s) 
from current or former employer(s) or trainer(s) and shall include the name, address, 
and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien 
or of the training received. 
In this case the name and title of the writer from are not discernible. The letter includes a 
signature above the words "Authorized Signatory." But the signature is illegible and unaccompanied by 
a printed identification. Nor does the letter indicate the title of the authorized signatory. In view of 
these important omissions, we find that the letter from is insufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary has at least one year of qualifying experience, as required on the labor certification. A 
petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by us 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 10 25, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). 
As previously noted, although the record includes two additional employer letters from 
and neither of these work experiences was listed on the labor certification, which lessens 
the credibility of the evidence and facts asserted in the letters. See Matter of Leung, 16 I&N Dec. 
2530 (BIA 1976). We also note that one of these letters - from - has the same 
substantive deficiencies as the letter. Furthermore, neither of the letters documents that the 
beneficiary's work (during the time period of 2004 to 2007) encompassed all of the skills required in 
Part H.l4. of the labor certification, such as JSTL, Apache SOLR, and IBM DB2. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page 13 
Thus, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary met the minimum educational and 
experience requirements of the offered position set forth on the labor certification by the priority date of 
January 20, 20 14. For these reasons as well, the petition must be denied. 
CONCLUSION 
The petition is deniable on the following grounds: 
1. The beneficiary does not have a U.S. master's degree or a foreign equivalent degree, nor 
five years of qualifying experience to go along with his foreign equivalent bachelor's 
degree, and thus is not eligible for classification as an advanced degree professional 
under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
2. The beneficiary does not qualify for the proffered position under the terms of the labor 
certification because he does not meet the educational and experience requirements set 
forth in the ETA Form 9089. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. 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). That burden has not been met in this case. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.