dismissed EB-2 Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
U.S. ])ep:trtment of Homel:md Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W ., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
SEP 1 8 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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)(A) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A) 
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.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
)~ 
~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center (director), denied the immigrant visa 
petition and the petitioner appealed the director's decision to the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO). We withdrew the decision and remanded the matter to the director for further action. 
Thereafter, we withdrew our decision and reopened the proceeding on our own motion. The 
appeal will be dismissed. The denial of the petition will be affirmed. 
The petitioner describes itself as an information technology services business. It seeks to 
permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a Systems Software Developer. The 
petitioner requests classification of the beneficiary as an advanced degree professional pursuant to 
section 203(b)(2)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A). 
As required by statute, the petition is accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, Application for 
Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification), approved by the U.S. Department of 
Labor (DOL). 1 The priority date of the petition is October 9, 2012, which is the date that the 
labor certification was filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 
The petitioner's appeal is properly filed and makes a specific allegation of error in law or fact. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v . DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). We consider all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly 
submitted on appeal.2 An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical 
requirements of the law may be denied even if the director does not identify all of the grounds for 
denial in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F.Supp. 2d 1025, 
1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 D.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, supra. 
Procedural History 
On April26, 2013, the petitioner filed a Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, for the 
beneficiary. On July 1, 2013, the director denied the petition, finding that the underlying labor 
certification did not require a member of the professions holding an advanced degree as it allowed 
for "the combination of education, experience, and/or training to be 'equivalent' to a master's 
degree." The petitioner appealed the director's decision 
on August 6, 2013. 
On October 31, 2013, we withdrew the director's decision, determining that the director had 
misstated the terms of the labor certification and that its language did support a visa petition for 
an advanced degree professional. We did not, however, find the visa petition to be approvable as 
the record failed to establish that the beneficiary held an advanced degree in a field required by 
the labor certification. Therefore, we remanded the petition to the director for further action, 
including the issuance of a new decision. On December 2, 2013, the petitioner submitted 
additional evidence of the beneficiary's qualifications to the director. 
1 See section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(a)(2). 
2 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, which are incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page 3 
However, on July 3, 2014, we withdrew our prior decision and sua sponte reopened the matter 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(ii), as further review of the record indicated that we had erred 
in concluding that the labor certification supported the instant visa petition without further 
evidence. On this same date, we issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) seeking evidence to clarify 
the educational requirements set forth in the labor certification and gave the petitioner 30 days in 
which to respond. We have now received the petitioner's reply to the RFE. 
Having withdrawn our prior decision and reopened this matter on our own motion, we will 
resume this proceeding as though no decision was previously issued, and will consider de novo 
whether the underlying labor certification in this matter supports a visa petition for the 
classification of a beneficiary under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. The evidence of record will 
be reviewed in its entirety, including the petitioner's correspondence of December 2, 2013 and the 
petitioner's response to our motion and RFE. 
The Roles of the DOL and USCIS in the Immigrant Visa Process 
At the outset, it is important to discuss the respective roles of DOL and United States Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the employment-based immigrant visa process. As noted 
above, the labor certification in this matter is certified by DOL. DOL's role in this process is set forth 
at section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, which provides: 
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 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 417, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In turn, DOL 
(b)(6)
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
has the authority to make the two determinations listed in section 212(a)(14).3 !d. 
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)(l4). If DOL is to 
analyze alien qualifications, it is for the purpose of "matching" them with those of 
corresponding United States workers so that it will then be "in a position to meet 
the requirement of the law," namely the section 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 
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)(l4) 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 ofthatjob. 
(Emphasis added.) Id at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citing K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006, 
revisited this issue, stating: 
3 Based on revisions to the Act, the current citation is section 212(a)(5)(A). 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. !d. § 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. !d. § 204(b ), 
8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). See generally KR.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 DOL's responsibility to determine whether there are qualified U.S. workers 
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 the 
beneficiary are eligible for the requested employment-based immigrant visa classification. 
Labor Certification Requirements/Beneficiary Qualifications 
Part H of the labor certification in this matter states that the offered position has the following 
minimum requirements: 
H.4. 
H.4-B. 
H.5. 
H.6. 
H.7. 
H.7-A. 
H.8. 
H.8-A. 
H.8-B. 
H.8-C. 
H.9. 
H.lO. 
H.14. 
Education: Master's. 
Major field of study: Computer Science, Information Systems. 
Training: None required. 
Experience in the job offered: None required. 
Alternate field of study: Accepted. 
Major field of study: "Or related field." 
Alternate combination of education and experience: Accepted. 
Alternate level of education: Other. 
Alternate level of education required: "Education evaluated to a 
Master's." 
Number ofyears of experience required in H.8: 0 years. 
Foreign educational 
equivalent: Accepted. 
Experience in an alternate occupation: Not accepted. 
Specific skills or other requirements: "Must have demonstrated 
knowledge of Linux, Siebel, PL/SQL, XML, and Oracle. Frequent 
travel to unanticipated client sites across USA is required." 
Therefore, the beneficiary, as of the October 9, 2012 priority date, is required to hold a U.S. Master's 
or a foreign equivalent degree in Computer Science, Information Systems or a related field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Alternatively, the labor certification states that the petitioner will accept an applicant with "Education 
evaluated to a Master's." The beneficiary must also be knowledgeable with respect to the above 
computer 
operating/management systems. 
Part 1 of the labor certification states that the beneficiary possesses a Master's degree in Computer 
Applications from in India, awarded in 2001. The record contains the 
following evidence relating to the beneficiary's education: 
• Copies of the beneficiary's Secondary School Leaving Certificate, issued June 16, 
1992, and his Higher Secondary Course Certificate, issued May 25, 1994. 
• Copies of degree certificates, which reflect that the beneficiary received a three-year 
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from 
College, an institution affiliated with in 1998, and a three-
year Master of Computer Applications from in 2001. The 
certificates are accompanied by copies of the beneficiary's academic transcripts. 
• An April 2006 evaluation of the beneficiary's educational credentials by 
Ph.D., 
; and an undated evaluation of the beneficiary's educational credentials by 
.Ph.D., .___ _____ .... 
• Copies of statements from two previous employers of the beneficiary regarding his 
experience with com uter languages and systems, including an August 16, 2011 
statement from Project Lead at 
Michigan· and a January 28, 2011 statement from from 
Florida. Mr. states that the beneficiary has 
experience with Linux, PLISQL, Oracle and XML; Mr. indicates that 
while employed by the beneficiary worked with Oracle, Siebel, 
andXML. 
• A copy of the Graduate Computer Science Courses offered by 
in 2007. 
Requirement for Advanced Degree Professional 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(i) states, in part: 
The job offer portion of the individual labor certification, Schedule A application, or 
Pilot Program application must demonstrate that the job requires a professional 
holding an advanced degree or the equivalent or an alien of exceptional ability. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines the terms "advanced degree" and "profession." 
An "advanced degree" is defined as: 
-------- --- -------- ---- --------
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
[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." 
In Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006), the court 
held that, in professional and advanced degree professional cases, where the beneficiary is statutorily 
required to hold at least a baccalaureate degree, USCIS properly concluded that a single foreign 
degree or its equivalent is required. Therefore, a petitioner must demonstrate that the labor 
certification requires no less than a U.S. academic or 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. 
In evaluating the job offer portion of the labor certification to determine the required 
qualifications for the position, USC IS may not ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it 
impose additional requirements. See Matter of Silver Dragon Chinese Restaurant, 19 I &N Dec. 
401, 406 (Comm. 1986); see also Madany, 696 F.2d at 1008; KR.K Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 
1006; Stewart Infra-Red Commissary of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 
1981 ). The only rational manner by which US CIS 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.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 [labor certification]." !d. at 834 (emphasis added). USCIS 
cannot and should not reasonably be expected to look beyond the plain language of the labor 
certification. 
In the RFE issued on July 3, 2014, we informed the petitioner that the labor certification did not 
clearly reflect the requirement of a minimum of an advanced degree, as the language in Parts H.8-A. 
and H.8-B. ofthe labor certification, which described its alternate educational requirements, allowed 
a beneficiary to qualify for the offered position with academic credentials that were only "evaluated" 
to a Master's degree. We further noted that we were required to read this language as stated and that, 
on its face, it allowed a beneficiary to qualify for the offered position with multiple baccalaureate 
degrees or with education that had not actually resulted in the issuance of any degree. To assist us in 
.determining whether, despite the ambiguity of its language, the labor certification's terms stated the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 8 
need for an individual with an advanced degree, we requested the posting notice, and online and print 
advertisements from the petitioner's recruitment for the offered position. 
In response to the RFE, counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the labor certification clearly 
specifies that the offered position requires a Master's degree. She further contends that we have 
wrongly concluded that multiple bachelor's degrees or years of education may be found to be a 
qualifying equivalent to a Master's degree under the terms of the labor certification, and that no 
regulation or statute supports our conclusion. Counsel also maintains that the phrase "Education 
evaluated to a Master's" is simply a variation of the requirement for a Master's degree. She states 
that, if the petitioner was willing to accept a Master's degree equivalency based on a combination 
of multiple lesser degrees or work experience or training, the petitioner would have indicated that 
willingness on the labor certification. 
Counsel also submits the requested recruitment materials, which, she states, offer proof that the 
petitioner's minimum educational requirement for the offered position is a master's degree "based 
exclusively on chronological education and education alone." Included in the submission are: the 
30-day job order placed with the Missouri State Workforce Agency; two job advertisements from 
the July 15 and July 22, 2012 _ the internet posting for the offered 
position; the job posting for the offered position on the petitioner's website; the job posting with 
the petitioner's Employee Referral Program; the posting notice for the offered position; the 
Prevailing Wage Determination for the offered position; and the recruitment report for the offered 
position. Counsel notes that only one resume was received by the petitioner as a result of its 
recruitment efforts and that the individual who submitted the resume was seeking a customer 
service/clerical position unrelated to the offered position. 
Review of the advertisements from the finds them to include the 
following language regarding the educational requirements for the offered position: "Master's 
degree or edu. evaluated to Master's in C. Sci., Info. Sys. or related field." These same 
requirements, in virtually identical language, are reflected in the submitted job order and the 
petitioner's postings of the offered position on the internet, its website and with its Employee 
Referral Program. The petitioner's posting notice and an Addendum to Section D.B.5., the 
Special Requirements section ofthe petitioner's Prevailing Wage Determination Application, also 
state that job applicants must hold a Master's degree or "education evaluated to a Master's in 
Computer Science, Information or related field." The submitted recruitment materials do not, 
however, offer similar clarification of the alternate educational requirement described in Parts 
H.8-A. and H.8-B. of the labor certification. 
The language used to describe the offered position's minimum education requirements in the 
above materials is identical to that found in the labor certification. Although counsel claims that 
"Education evaluated to a Master's" is simply a "variation" of the petitioner's Master's degree 
requirement, her assertion is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. The 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
. . ···-- ------·-- . ----------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Further, counsel's conclusion that the RFE somehow indicated 
that Master's degree equivalencies might be based on multiple bachelor's degrees or other 
education reflects a misunderstanding of the RFE's discussion of the issue, which indicated only 
that the phrase "Education equated to a Master's" allowed for such interpretation and, therefore, 
raised questions with regard to the petitioner's degree requirement for the offered petition. As 
counsel correctly states, users does not consider multiple bachelor's degrees or lesser degrees, 
when combined, to be the equivalent of a Master's degree. See Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael 
Chertoff. 
The language of the labor certification at Parts H.8-A. and H.8-B. indicates that the petitioner will 
accept "Education evaluated to a Master's" as meeting the minimum educational requirement for 
the offered position, and the recruitment materials submitted by the petitioner reflect this same 
language. Accordingly, we do not find the labor certification in this matter to demonstrate that 
the minimum educational requirement for the offered position is a Master's degree, or a foreign 
equivalent degree in Computer Science, Information Systems, or a related field. 
As noted above, the petitioner required a Master's degree in Part H.4. of the labor certification. 
The petitioner also indicated that it permitted applicants to qualify based on a foreign degree 
equivalent in Part H.9. The plain language of Part H.8. of the labor certification allows "an 
alternate combination of education and experience" to the primary requirements. The petitioner 
indicated that it would accept an alternate level of "Education evaluated to a Master's" in lieu of 
the primary requirements specified. Thus, the plain language of the terms of the labor 
certification would permit an applicant to qualify for the position offered with only education 
"evaluated to a Master's," which may not be an advanced degree within the confines of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). Contrary to counsel's assertions, we do find "that education evaluated to a 
Master's" may state an acceptance of education "less than an actual master's degree." The 
regulation permits an individual to qualify as an advanced degree professional only if the position 
offered requires, and the beneficiary possesses, either a degree above a baccalaureate, or a 
baccalaureate degree and five years of progressive experience. The regulation does not permit a 
position to be classified as an advanced degree professional where the position offered requires 
only "education" and not a degree above a baccalaureate, or a baccalaureate and at least five years 
of progressive experience. While counsel urges that we review the labor certification "in its 
whole," counsel's argument relies on us ignoring Part H.8-A., which specifies what "level" of 
education the petitioner requires. The petitioner selected "Other," and not the provided levels, 
which include "Master's." If the labor certification permitted an individual to qualify only with a 
Master's, the petitioner's provision of"Other" terms in Part H.8. would be rendered meaningless. 
As noted above, we cannot ignore the labor certification's terms. 
As an individual can potentially qualify for the offered position with less than a degree above a 
baccalaureate, and the petitioner has not indicated that it will accept a baccalaureate degree followed 
by five years of progressive experience in the specialty, the offered position does not require a 
professional holding an advanced degree or the equivalent, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
§ 204.5(k)(4)(i). Therefore, the petition cannot be approved for a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree under section 203(b)(2) ofthe Act. 
Accordingly, we will affirm the director's denial of the visa petition in this matter, although, for 
the reasons discussed in our October 2013 decision, we continue to find that his July 1, 2013 
decision was based on a misreading of the terms of the labor certification. 
Classification of Beneficiary as an Advanced Degree Professional 
The petitioner is seeking classification of the beneficiary as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A). Therefore, 
the beneficiary of an advanced degree professional petition must be a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or a U.S. baccalaureate (or a foreign equivalent degree) followed by at 
least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 
As previously noted, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines profession 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 Occupational Outlook Handbook, Bureau of Labor Statistics, DOL indicates 
that the education required for entry-level employment into the offered position of Software 
Developer is a Bachelor's degree. See http://www.bls.gov.ooh/ (accessed August 22, 2014). 
Accordingly, the beneficiary may be considered a member of the professions. 
In Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006), the court 
held that, in professional and advanced degree professional cases, where the beneficiary is statutorily 
required to hold at least a baccala~eate degree, USCIS properly concluded that a single foreign 
degree or its equivalent is required. Where the analysis of the beneficiary's credentials relies on 
work experience alone or a combination of multiple lesser degrees, the result is the "equivalent" 
of a bachelor's degree rather than a "foreign equivalent degree. "4 
The beneficiary's degree must also be from a college or university. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requires the submission of an "official academic record showing that the 
beneficiary has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree." For 
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." USCIS cannot 
conclude that the evidence required to demonstrate that a beneficiary is an advanced degree 
professional is any less than the evidence required to show that the beneficiary is a professional. 
4 Compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) (defming for purposes of H-lB nonimmigrant visa classification, the 
"equivalence to completion of a college degree" as including, in certain cases, a specific combination of education 
and experience). The regulations pertaining to the immigrant classification sought in this matter do not contain 
similar language. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
To do so would undermine the congressionally mandated classification scheme by allowing a 
lesser evidentiary standard for the more restrictive visa classification. See Silverman v. Eastrich 
Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28,31 (3rd Cir. 1995)per APWUv . Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 
626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003) (the basic tenet of statutory construction, to give effect to all 
provisions, is equally applicable to regulatory construction). Moreover, the commentary 
accompanying the proposed advanced degree professional regulation specifically states that a 
"baccalaureate means a bachelor's degree receivedfrom a college or university, or an equivalent 
degree." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30706 (July 5, 1991).5 
Thus, the plain meaning of the Act and the regulations is that the beneficiary of an advanced degree 
professional petition must possess, at a minimum, a degree from a college or university that is a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree. 
In the present case, the record establishes that the beneficiary received a three-year Bachelor of 
Science in Computer Science from an institution 
affiliated with in 1998 and a three-year Master of Computer Applications 
from in 2001. According to the Electronic Database for Global Education 
(EDGE) on which the AAO routinely relies for information on degrees issued by overseas 
educational institutions, a Master of Computer Application (MCA) is comparable to a Master's 
degree in the United States.6 EDGE also indicates that an Indian Master of Computer Application is 
comparable to a U.S. Master's degree in Computer Applications, rather than Computer Science. 
In our October 31, 2013 decision, we found that the record did not establish that the beneficiary's 
Master of Computer Applications from was the equivalent of a U.S. Master 
of Computer Science, as had been indicated by Ph.D., in his April 2006 
evaluation of the beneficiary's academic credentials. We noted that Dr. had not provided a 
rationale for equating these two distinct fields of study. 
5 Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) (relating to aliens of exceptional ability requiring the submission of "an 
official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, 
university, school or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability"). 
6 EDGE is the creation of the Ame~ican Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) . 
According to its website, www.aacrao .org, AACRAO is "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more 
than II ,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 around the world." http://www.aacrao.org/About­
AACRAO.aspx. Its mission "is to serve and advance higher education by providing leadership in academic and 
enrollment services." !d. According to the registration page for EDGE, EDGE is "a web-based resource for the 
evaluation of foreign educational credentials." http://edge.aacrao.org/info.php. 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 . If placement recommendations are included, the Council Liaison works with the author to 
give feedback and the publication is subject to fmal review by the entire CounciL/d. USCIS considers EDGE to be a 
reliable, peer-reviewed source of information about foreign credentials equivalencies . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
On December 2, 2013, the petitioner submitted additional evidence to the director in an effort to 
establish the beneficiary's Indian Master's degree in Computer Applications as the foreign 
equivalent degree of a U.S. Master's degree in Computer Science. In a November 27, 2013 letter 
accom anying the new evidence, counsel for the petitioner asserted that, contrary to our findings, Dr. 
had provided his rationale for finding the beneficiary to have a foreign equivalent degree of 
a U.S. Master's degree in Computer Science. As further proof that the beneficiary's degree was the 
foreign equivalent of a Master's in Computer Science, counsel pointed to the petitioner's submission 
of a second evaluation of the beneficiary's academic credentials, prepared by Ph.D. 
at who, like Dr. found the beneficiary to have completed 
coursework comparable to a typical U.S. Master's degree in Computer Science. The petitioner also 
provided a listing of the graduate Computer Science courses offered by m 
2007. 
The submitted evidence does not overcome EDGE's advice that an Indian Master's degree in 
Computer Applications is comparable to a U.S. Master's degree in Computer Applications, not a 
U.S. Master's degree in Computer Science. However, .the petitioner established that the beneficiary 
may meet the educational requirements of the labor certification with a Master's degree in a field 
related to Computer Science or Information Systems. Accordingly, we find the beneficiary's 
Master's degree in Computer Applications from to be the foreign equivalent 
degree of a U.S. Master's degree in a related field of study, as required by the labor certification. 
We also find the previously noted statements from Project Lead at 
Michigan, dated August 16, 2011; and at 
Florida, dated January 28, 2011, to demonstrate that the beneficiary 
has the "demonstrated knowledge" of the computer operating/management systems required in Part 
H.14. of the labor certification. 
The evidence of record demonstrates that the beneficiary is a member of the professions and holds 
the foreign equivalent of a U.S. Master's degree in a field required by the labor certification. Further, 
it demonstrates that he meets the special requirements set forth in the labor certification. Therefore, 
the beneficiary may be eligible for classification as an advanced degree professional under section 
203(b)(2)(A) ofthe Act. However, the petition cannot be approved as the evidence of record does 
not demonstrate that the offered position requires a professional with an advanced degree 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(i). Accordingly, we will affirm the director's denial of the visa 
petition on the grounds stated in this decision. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 
128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. The petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.