dismissed EB-2 Case: Information Technology

(b)(6) U.S. Department ol' Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizen ship and Immigration Services 
Administr ati ve Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W ., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JUN 1 2 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE : 
IN RE: 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) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision ofthe Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-pr ece dent 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 1-2908) 
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 requit·ements. 
See also 8 C.F.R . § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank you, 
-~·- .·· ~ · -- · -J; _ J.#_ · Ml . l~- ·· · .. · . .. ' : _,.,_ _1£. WI ._ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISIO N 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner describes itself as an information technology business. It seeks to permanently 
employ the beneficiary in the United States as a senior network engineer. 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
At issue in this case is whether the beneficiary possesses an advanced degree as required by the 
terms of the labor certification and the requested preference classification . 
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
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 July 29, 2012.2 
Part H of the labor certification states that the offered position has the following mtmmum 
requirements: 
H.4. Education: master's degree in engineering, business, science, or math. 
H.5. Training : None required. 
H.6. Experience in the job offered: 36 months. 
H.7. Alternate field of study: None accepted. 
H.8. Alternate combination of education and experience : bachelor's degree plus five years 
of experience in the offered job. 
H.9. Foreign educational equivalent: Accepted. 
H. I 0. Experience in an alternate occupation: None accepted. 
H.14. Specific skills or other requirements: Network programming and engineering. 
Network Security Maintenance. Network routing -CISCO, MPLS, EIGRP, BGP, and 
LAN/WAN Router. Network switching -VLAN, CISCO. Product knowledge -
CISCO, JUNIPER, with Certifications such as CCNA (Cisco Certified Network 
Associate), CCSP, CCIP, and additional certifications for Firewall Configurations 
(Prefer Juniper Products .) 
Part J of the labor certification states that the beneficiary possesses a master's degree in computer 
management from in Indore, India, completed in 2002. The record 
contains a copy of the beneficiary's Bachelor of Commerce diploma issued on December 7, 1998, and 
1 See section 212(a)(5)(D) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(a)(2). 
2 
The priority date is the date the DOL accepted the labor certification for processing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(d). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
his Master of Computer Management diploma issued on December 2, 2002, both from 
Indore. The record also contains certificates showing 
the beneficiary's completion of 
the followin courses: on April II , 2008; 
and, 
on February 26, 2007; Jw1iper 
on Januarv 27, 2006; 
The director found that the beneficiary' s education was the equivalent of a United States bachelor's 
degree and that the beneficiary did not have the required five years of employment experience. As 
such, the director determined that the petition did not meet the requested visa classification. 
The record contains an evaluation of the beneficiary's educational credentials prepared by 
for on October 11, 2010. The evaluation states that the 
beneficiary ' s academic record was the "equivalent of a Bachelor of Business Administration Degree 
and one year of graduate education in Computer Management from a Regionally Accredited College 
or University in the United States of America ." 
Part K of the labor certification states that the beneficiary possesses the following employment 
expenence: 
• Employment for the etitioner as a network engineer since July 29, 2012. 
• Employment for LLC in Muscat, Oman, as a senior network 
engineer from May 1, 20 I 0, to May 31, 2011. 
• Employment for the petitioner in St. Louis, Missouri, as a network security engineer 
from November 1, 2008, to October 31,2009. 
• Employment for Inc., in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania
, as a 
network engineer from September 1, 2007, to October 30, 2008. 
• Employment for Inc., in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, as a 
network security consultant from ay 1, 2007, to August 31, 2007. 
• Employment for Ltd. in Singapore as a network and security 
engineer from August 1, 2005, to April30, 2007. 
• Employment for Ltd. in Bangalore, India, as a network security 
engineer from July 1, 2004, to July 31, 2005. 
• Employment for Ltd. in Bangalore, India, as a network security 
engineer from March 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004. 
• Employment for Ltd. in New Delhi, India, as a pre-sales 
support engineer from September 1, 2002 to March 1, 2003. 
The oetitioner submitted docwnentation to corroborate his claimed employment for 
and for the petitioner. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
The director's October 11, 2013, decision denying the petition determined that the evidence "[does] 
not cover five years of experience in the job offered, nor are all the required skills indicated in part 
H. Number 14 of the [labor certification] listed in the letters." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a printout from the World Education Services online "Degree 
Equivalency Tool." This printout suggests that the beneficiary's Master of Computer Management 
degree should be considered the equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. However, it appears that this 
evaluation was actually an automated response to questions answered by the beneficiary, not an actual 
review of the beneficiary's academic credentials. 
The petitioner's appeal is properly filed and makes a specific allegation of error in law or fact. The 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis? The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in 
the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appea1.4 A petition that fails to comply 
with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO even if the director does not 
identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. 5 
II. 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: 
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 
3 See 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the 
powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice 
or by rule."); see also Janka v. US. Dept. ofTransp ., NTSB, 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., Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
4 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to Form I-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, which are incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1). 
The record in the instant case provides no reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents 
newly submitted on appeal. See Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
5 See Spencer Enterpr ises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afl'd , 
345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
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 417, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In turn, DOL has the authority 
to make the two determinations listed in section 212(a)(14). 6 Id. at 423 . The 
necessary result of these two grants of authority is that sectien 212(a)(l4) 
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 ofthe Act, the totality ofthe 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 
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.2d1008, 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. 
6 Based on revisions to the Act, the current citation is section 212(a)(5)(A). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
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.) I d. 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. Id. § 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 
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 . 
Eligibility for the Classification Sought 
Section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), provides immigrant classification to members of 
the professions holding advanced degrees . See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(1). 
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-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[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) ofthe 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 
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 the instant case, the petitioner relies on the beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Commerce followed 
by a Master of Computer Management from in Indore, India, as being 
equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. 
As is noted above the record contains an evaluation of the beneficiary's educational credentials 
prepared by for on October 11, 2010. The evaluation 
states that the beneficiary's academic record was the "equivalent of a Bachelor of Business 
Administration Degree and one year of graduate education in Computer Management from a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§JON 
Page 8 
Regionally Accredited College or University in the United States of America." 7 This evaluation 
contradicts the online World Education Services evaluation provided by the petitioner on appeal, 
indicating that the beneficiary's education is the equivalent of a master's degree in the United States. 
users uses an evaluation by a credentials evaluation organization of a person's foreign education as 
an advisory opinion only. Where an evaluation is not in accord with previous equivalencies or is in 
any way questionable, it may be discounted or given less weight. Matter of Sea, Inc. , 19 l&N Dec. 
817 (Comm'r 1988). 
The AAO has reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) created by the American 
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). 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 around the world." See http://www.aacrao.org/ About­
AACRAO.aspx. Its mission "is to serve and advance higher education by providing leadership in 
academic and emollment services." Id EDGE is "a web-based resource for the evaluation of foreign 
educational credentials. II See http://edge.aacrao.org/info.php. users considers EDGE to be a reliable, 
peer-reviewed source of information about foreign credentials equivalencies.8 
7 users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comrnr. 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien 's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility. US CIS may evaluate the content of the letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, 
in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id at 795. See also Matter ofSoffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia , 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Commr. 1972)); Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 2011) (expert witness testimony 
may be given different weight depending on the extent ofthe expert's qualifications or the relevance, 
reliability, and probative value of the testimony). 
8 In Confluence International , Inc. v. Holder, 2009 WL 825793 (D.Minn. March 27, 2009), the court 
determined that the AAO provided a rational explanation for its reliance on information provided by 
AACRAO to support its decision. In Tiseo Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, 2010 WL 3464314 
(E.D.Mich. August 30, 2010), the court found that USCIS had properly weighed the evaluations 
submitted and the information obtained from EDGE to conclude that the beneficiary's three-year 
foreign "baccalaureate" and foreign "Master's" degree were only comparable to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree. In Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. v. USCIS, 2010 WL 3325442 (E.D.Mich. August 20, 
201 0), the court upheld a users determination that the beneficiary's three-year bachelor's degree 
was not a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Specifically, the court concluded 
that USCIS was entitled to prefer the information in EDGE and did not abuse its discretion in 
reaching its conclusion. The court also noted that the labor certification required a degree and did 
not allow for the combination of education and experience. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
According to EDGE, the beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Commerce is comparable to three years of 
university study in the United States, and the Master of Computer Management is comparable to a 
bachelor's degree in the United States. Therefore, based on the conclusions of EDGE , the evidence in 
the record on appeal is not sufficient to establish that the beneficiary possesses the foreign equivalent of 
a U.S. master's degree. 
Furthermore, while the labor certification indicates that the petitioner would accept a bachelor 's degree 
plus five years of experience in the offered job in lieu of a master's degree, the documentation does not 
establish that the beneficiary has five years of experience in the offered job. The submitted 
employment verification documents do not provide all of the information required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(g)(l) and (1)(3 (ii)(A). Specifically, the petitioner has submitted only a contract of 
employment from LLC, and this document does not verify the duration 
of the beneficiary 's employment, does not provide a description of the beneficiary ' s duties, and 
identifies the beneficiary's job title as "General System Analyst," not a senior network engineer as 
was claimed on the labor certification. The petitioner submitted only copies of job offers to the 
beneficiary from Ltd., for employment as a technical engineer ; ±rom 
Ltd. , for employment as a monitoring engineer; from 
Ltd., for employment "in our India Delivery Center Network Organization in the 
and from Inc., for employment as a software engineer. These 
documents do not reflect the duration of the beneficiary's employment, they do not provide 
information regarding the beneficiary's job duties during his employment, and the job title listed on 
each of these letters does not match the title claimed on the labor certification. The petitioner 
provided a "Certification of Employment" on letterhead and signed 
on April 3, 2007 , by who identified himself as the company's director. This letter 
confirms the duration of employment claimed on the labor certification, but it does not verify the 
beneficiary ' s job duties during his employment and, thus, is incomplete. In addition, this letter states 
that the beneficiary worked for as a hosting operations engineer, 
while the beneficiary had claimed to have worked there as a network and security engineer. 
Each of the employment documents submitted by the petitioner fails to provide the information 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) and (l)(3)(ii)(A) , as detailed above. As is also detailed above, 
each of the employment documents submitted by the petitioner bears discrepancies between itself 
and the beneficiary's claimed employment on the labor certification. 9 Therefore, the submitted 
documentation is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary satisfies the minimum requirements of 
the offered position . 
9 It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591-592 (BIA 1988). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 10 
Even if the beneficiary's claimed employment record were accepted as proof of the claimed experience, 
it does not reflect five years of experience in the offered job of senior network engineer. The 
beneficiary's claimed employment record shows numerous jobs in the computer industry since 2002; 
however, the only claimed experience as a senior network engineer is for 
LLC in Muscat, Oman, for thirteen months from May 1, 2010, to May 31, 2011. As noted above, the 
ETA Form 9089 at Part H.6 requires 36 months of experience in the job offered, senior network 
engineer. Pmi H. I 0 states that experience in an alternate occupation is not accepted. Thus, the 
experience letters would not establish the experience required by the labor certification application, 
even if such letters could be accepted. 
Moreover, the petitioner described the position of senior network engineer as requiring "Network 
programming and engineering. Network Security Maintenance. Network routing -CISCO, MPLS, 
EIGRP, BGP, and LAN/WAN Router. Network switching -VLAN, CISCO. Product knowledge -
CISCO , JUNIPER, with Certifications such as CCNA (Cisco Certified Network Associate), CCSP, 
CCIP, and additional certifications for Firewall Configurations (Prefer Juniper Products.) " The 
beneficiary's claimed employment record does not show any work experience with MPLS, EIGRP, 
BGP, LAN/WAN Router, or VLAN. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, it is concluded that the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary possessed at least 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. The beneficiary does not meet 
the minimum requirements of the position. Therefore, the beneficiary does not qualify for classification 
as an advanced degree professional under section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 
The Minimum Requirements of the Offered Position 
The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary satisfied all of the educational, trammg, 
experience and any other requirements of the offered position by the priority date. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l), (12). See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977); 
see also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). 
In evaluating the beneficiary 's qualifications, US CIS must look to the job offer portion of the labor 
certification to determine the required qualifications for the position. USCIS may not ignore a term 
ofthe 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 Cir. 1981 ). USC IS must examine "the language of the labor certification 
job requirements " in order to determine what the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary has 
to be found qualified for the position. Madany, 696 F.2d at 1015. USCIS interprets the meaning of 
terms used to describe the requirements of a job in a labor certification by "examin[ing] 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
language of the [labor certification]" even if the employer may have intended different requirements 
than those stated on the form. !d. at 834 (emphasis added). 
In the instant case, the labor certification states that the offered pos1t10n requires "Network 
programming and engineering. Network Security Maintenance. Network routing 
-CISCO, MPLS, 
EIGRP, BGP, and LAN/WAN Router. Network switching -VLAN, CISCO. Product knowledge­
CISCO, JUNIPER, with Certifications such as CCNA (Cisco Certified Network Associate), CCSP, 
CCIP, and additional 
certifications for Firewall Configurations (Prefer Juniper Products.)" 
For the reasons explained above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary possesses a 
master's degree or a bachelor's degree plus five years of experience in the offered job. In addition, the 
petitioner had also failed to establish that the petitioner possesses the required skills for the offered 
position. 
Evidence relating to qualifying experience must be in the form of a letter from a current or former 
employer and must include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the 
duties performed by the beneficiary. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). If such evidence is unavailable, USCIS 
may consider other documentation relating to the beneficiary's experience. !d. 
As discussed above, the record contains documentation of the beneficiary's work history since 2002. 
However, the beneficiary claimed only 13 months of experience in the offered job of senior network 
engineer and the beneficiary's claim is contradicted by documentation submitted that shows he was 
hired as a general network analyst. In addition, the submitted documentation does not satisfy the 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) and does not establish that the beneficiary's work provided 
him with experience with any of the skills required by the labor certification. Even the beneficiary 's 
own description of his employment history does not claim any work experience with MPLS, EIGRP, 
BGP, LAN/WAN Router, or VLAN. Therefore, the submitted experience letters do not establish that 
the beneficiary possessed 
the required experience for the offered position. 
The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed the minimum requirements of the 
offered position set forth on the labor certification by the priority date. Accordingly, the petition must 
also be denied for this reason. 
Ability to Pay the Proffered Wage 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has also failed to establish its ability to pay the 
proffered wage as of the priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent 
residence. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
In determining the petitioner 's ability to pay the proffered wage, USCIS first examines whether the 
petitioner has paid the beneficiary the full proffered wage each year from the priority date. If the 
petitioner has not paid the beneficiary the full proffered wage each year, USCIS will next examine 
whether the petitioner had sufficient net income or net current assets to pay the difference between 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
the wage paid, if any, and the proffered wage. 10 If the petitioner 's net income or net current assets is 
not sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner ' s ability to pay the proffered wage, USCIS may also 
consider the overall magnitude of the petitioner's business activities. See Matter of Sonegawa, 12 
I&N Dec. 612 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967). 
In the instant case, the priority date is July 29, 2012, and the proffered wage is $91,000 per year. 
The petitioner submitted paystubs that indicate the instant beneficiary was paid $78,091.84 in 2012. 
Thus, the petitioner must still establish the ability to pay the difference between the proffered wage 
and the wages actually paid in 2012; that is, $12,908.16. The petitioner has not established that it 
paid the beneficiary any wages in 2013. 
In addition, according to USCIS records, the petitioner has filed I-140 petitions on behalf of five 
other beneficiaries . Accordingly, the petitioner must establish that it has had the continuing ability 
to pay the combined proffered wages to each beneficiary from the priority date of the instant 
petition. See Matter ofGreat Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142, 144-145 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
The evidence in the record does not document the priority date, proffered wage, or wages paid to 
each of these other beneficiaries , whether any of the other petitions have been withdrawn , revoked, 
or denied, or whether any of the other beneficiaries have obtained lawful permanent residence. 
The record before the director closed on August 29, 2013, with the receipt by the director of the 
petitioner 's submissions in response to the director's request for evidence. As of that date, the 
petitioner's 2012 federal income tax return was the most recent return available. However, the 
record does not any contain annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements for the 
petitioner for 2 0 12. 1 1 
1 0 See River Street Donuts, LLC v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2009); Elatos Restaurant 
Corp. v. Sava, 632 F. Supp. 1049, 1054 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Tongatapu Woodcraji Hawaii, Ltd. v. 
Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1984)); Chi-Feng Chang v. Thornburgh, 719 F. Supp. 532 (N.D. 
Texas 1989); K.C.P. Food Co. v. Sava, 623 F. Supp. 1080 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); Ubeda v. Palmer , 539 F. 
Supp. 647 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff'd, 703 F.2d 571 (7th Cir. 1983); and Taco Especial v. N apolitano , 
696 F. Supp. 2d 873 (E.D. Mich. 2010), aff'd, No. 10-1517 (6th Cir. filed Nov. 10, 2011). 
11 
It is noted that the petitioner submitted a profit and loss statement for 2012. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) makes clear that where a petitioner relies on financial statements to 
demonstrate its ability to pay the proffered wage, those financial statements must be audited. An 
audit is conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards to obtain a reasonable 
assurance that the financial statements of the business are free of material misstatements. The 
unaudited financial statement submitted with the petition is not persuasive evidence. The 
unsupported representations of the petitioner are insufficient to demonstrate the ability to pay the 
proffered wage. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
The petitioner's failure to provide complete annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial 
statements for each year from the priority date is sufficient cause to dismiss this appeal. 
Accordingly, after considering the totality of the circumstances, it is concluded that the petitioner has 
not established its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary and the proffered 
wages to the beneficiaries of its other petitions as of the priority date of the current petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In summary, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed an advanced degree as 
required by the terms of the labor certification and the requested preference classification. 
Therefore, the beneficiary does not qualify for classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree under section 203(b)(2) ofthe Act. The director 's decision denying the petition 
is affirmed . The appeal is also dismissed because the petitioner has not established the ability to pay 
the proffered wage as of the priority date. 
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. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.