dismissed EB-2 Case: Internet Security

identifying data de,?eted to 
prevent cieiir!y &nv/~mlred 
imasial of pcccnaj p:ivgcy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
U 
J, John F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is an internet security service provider. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in 
the United States as a quality assurance engineer pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(2). As required by statute, an ETA Form 9089 
Application for Alien Employment Certification approved by the Department of Labor (DOL), 
accompanied the petition. Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the beneficiary 
did not satisfy the minimum level of education stated on the alien employment certification. 
Specifically, the director determined that the beneficiary did not possess a U.S. baccalaureate or 
foreign equivalent degree in the requisite field. The director also raised concerns about the 
petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. 
On appeal, counsel submitted a brief and additional evidence. On November 17, 2008, this office 
issued a notice advising the petitioner of information that contradicted the credential evaluations of 
record and afforded the petitioner an opportunity to resolve the inconsistencies noted. The petitioner 
was afforded 30 days to respond. As of this date, more than 30 days later, we have received no 
response. For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has overcome the director's valid concerns 
regarding the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. The petitioner has not, however, 
overcome the director's conclusions regarding the beneficiary's qualifications for the job offered. 
In pertinent part, section 2030>)(2) of the Act provides immigrant classification to members of the 
professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent and whose services are sought by an 
employer in the United States. An advanced degree is a United States academic or professional 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree above the baccalaureate level. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2). The 
regulation finther states: "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." Id. 
Ability to Pay the Proffered Wage 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(g)(2) states, in pertinent part: 
Ability of prospective employer to pay wage. 
 Any petition filed by or for an 
employment-based immigrant which requires an offer of employment must be 
accompanied by evidence that the prospective United States employer has the ability 
to pay the proffered wage. The petitioner must demonstrate this ability at the time the 
priority date is established and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful 
permanent residence. Evidence of this ability shall be either in the form of copies of 
annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. In a case where 
the prospective United States employer employs 100 or more workers, the director 
may accept a statement from a financial officer of the organization which establishes 
the prospective employer's ability to pay the proffered wage. 
The petitioner must demonstrate the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the 
priority date, the day the ETA Form 9089 was accepted for processing by any office within the 
employment system of the Department of Labor. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(d). Here, the ETA Form 
9089 was accepted for processing on September 11,2006. The proffered wage as stated on the ETA 
Form 9089 is $92,400 annually or $3,553.85 biweekly. On Part K of the ETA Form 9089, signed by 
the beneficiary, the beneficiary claimed to have worked for the petitioner as of January 6,2003. 
On the petition, the petitioner claimed to have an establishment date in 1999, a gross annual income 
of $10 million, no net income and 122 employees. In support of the petition, the petitioner 
submitted a letter from its Vice President of Human Resources affirming the company's ability to 
pay the proffered wage and audited financial statements showing net losses and current liabilities 
that exceed current assets. 
The director determined that the evidence submitted did not establish that the petitioner had the 
continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the priority date. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits the beneficiary's Form W-2 for 2005 reflecting wages of 
$86,493.40 in 2005 and pay statements reflecting wages of $3,850 from November 1, 2006 through 
December 15,2006. As of December 16,2006, the beneficiary had been paid year to date wages of 
$88,000.01. 
Where the petitioner has submitted the requisite initial documentation required in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(2), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will first examine 
whether the petitioner employed and paid the beneficiary during the relevant period. If the petitioner 
establishes by documentary evidence that it employed the beneficiary at a salary equal to or greater 
than the proffered wage, the evidence will be considered prima facie proof of the petitioner's ability 
to pay the proffered wage. In the instant case, the petitioner submitted audited financial statements. 
On appeal, the petitioner has now established that it paid the beneficiary only $5,906.60 less than the 
proffered wage in 2005 (before the priority date) and began paying the beneficiary more than the 
proffered wage by at least November 1, 2006, shortly after the priority date. As stated above, the 
petitioner employs over 100 workers. Thus, the petitioner's letter affirming its ability to pay the full 
proffered wage is sufficiently credible. 
Equivalency of Alien's Education 
The beneficiary possesses a three-year Bachelor of Science from Nagarjuna University and his 
Master of Science in Applied Chemistry from Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya. It is not contested 
that the beneficiary's Master's Degree is in a subject unrelated to the one specified on the alien 
employment certification. Rather, it is the petitioner's position that the beneficiary's baccalaureate 
degree, on its own, is a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate in one of the fields 
specified on the alien employment certification. 
Page 4 
The record contains evaluations from - of Career Consulting International (CCI), 
and of Marquess Educational Consultants. Both and - 
conclude that the beneficiary's baccalaureate constituted the completio 
equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate in Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics. 
conclusion by assigning four credits to each course the beneficiary took. While she explains on page 
4 that her "process" includes using "unit credits" or "clock hours of instruction" from academic 
records to determine the number of credits the beneficiary's transcript in the record does not include 
either figure. d both reference "Carnegie units" and cite a Colorado 
Christian University website for the definition of this unit. In our previous notice, however, this 
office advised the petitioner that the Camegie ~oundation's own website, 
http://~~~.came~efoundation.orFs/~eneral/sub.asp?kevl17&subke~= 1 874&topkey=17 (accessed 
November 6, 2008 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), states that the Carnegie unit is 
relevant only for "college preparatory coursework." 14 units are required for admission to college. 
Id. 
~hil indicates that she is a member of the American Evaluation Association (AEA), the 
Association of International Educators (NAFSA) and the European Association for International 
Education (EAIE), the record does not indicate what these organizations require for membership. As 
noted in our previous notice, we have reviewed the websites of these associations, and none of the 
associations require anything other than the payment of dues.3 We were also unable to confirm 
CCI's membership in EAIE.~ Regardless, the payment of dues does not confer any expertise. Dr. 
Kersey also claims on page 3 expertise as an "educator." His brief biography at the end of his 
evaluation makes no mention of employment as a professor other than an "honorary professorship 
from India" although he does claim to be the principal of St. Simon's College in London. As noted 
in our previous notice, we were unable to confirm the existence of this school on the Internet. Dr. 
relies on an article coauthored with. As noted in our previous decision, the 
record contains no evidence that this article has been published in a peer-reviewed publication. 
Rather, it has been posted on various Internet websites of unknown significance. Moreover, the 
article is not persuasive. The article includes British colleges that accept three-year degrees for 
admission to graduate school but concedes that "a number of other universities" would not accept 
1 
-indicates that she has a Master's degree from the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology and a 
doctorate from Ecole Superieure Robert de Sorbon but does not indicate the field in which she obtained her 
doctorate. According to its website, www.sorbon.fr/indexl .html, Ecole Superieure Robert de Sorbon awards 
de ees based on past experience. 
indicates he has a "canonical diploma of Sacrz Theologize Professor" from St. David's 
 ecumenical Institute of Divinity, which he equates to a Doctorate of ~ivkt~. We were unable to find any 
reference to this institution on the Internet. 
3 
 The bylaws for the AEA, accessed on November 6, 2008 at www.eval.ordaboutus/bylaws.asp, indicate: 
"Any individual interested in the purposes of the Association shall be eligible for membership." The bylaws 
for NAFSA, downloaded from www.nafsa.org on November 6, 2008, do not provide any specific 
requirements for members in Article I1 other than the payment of dues. Voting members must be individuals 
working in educational institutions, training or research facilities, organizations involved with international 
education or those employed independently. 
4 
 See www.eaie.orr/n~embership/teaser.asp?count~-USA (accessed November 6,2008). 
Page 5 
three-year degrees for admission to graduate school. 
 Similarly, the article lists some U.S. 
universities that accept three-year degrees for admission to graduate school but acknowledges that 
others do not. In fact, the article concedes: 
None of the members of N.A.C.E.S. who were approached were willing to grant 
equivalency to a bachelor's degree from a regionally accredited institution in the 
United States, although we heard anecdotally that one, W.E.S. had been interested in 
doing so. 
In this process, we encountered a number of the objections to equivalency that have 
already been discussed. 
. President of Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc., commented 
thus, 
"Contrary to your statement, a degree from a three-year "Bologna Process" bachelor's 
degree program in Europe will NOT be accepted as a degree by the majority of 
universities in the Untied States. Similarly, the majority do not accept a bachelor's 
degree from a three-year program in India or any other country except England. 
England is a unique situation because of the specialized nature of Form VI." 
International Education Consultants of Delaware, Inc., raise similar objections to 
those raised by ECE., 
"The Indian educational system, along with that of Canada and some other countries, 
generally adopted the UK-pattern 3-year degree. But the UK retained the important 
preliminary A level examinations. These examinations are used for advanced 
standing credit in the UK; we follow their lead, and use those examinations to 
constitute the an [sic] additional year of undergraduate study. The combination of 
these two entities is equivalent to a 4-year US Bachelor's degree. 
The Indian educational system dropped that advanced standing year. You enter a 3- 
year Indian degree program directly from Year 12 of your education. In the US, there 
are no degree programs entered from a stage lower than Year 12, and there are no 3- 
year degree programs. Without the additional advanced standing year, there's no 
equivalency. 
Finally, these materials do not examine whether those few U.S. institutions that may accept a three- 
year degree for graduate admission do so on the condition that the holder of a three-year degree 
complete extra credits. 
Page 6 
The petitioner also submitted 138 pages of UNESCO materials, only two of which are relevant. The 
relevant language relates to "recognition" of qualifications awarded in higher education. Paragraph 
1 (e) defines recognition as follows: 
'Recognition" of a foreign qualification in higher education means its acceptance by 
the competent authorities of the State concerned (whether they be governmental or 
nongovernmental) as entitling its holder to be considered under the same conditions 
as those holding a comparable qualification awarded in that State an deemed 
comparable, for the purposes of access to or further pursuit of higher education 
studies, participation in research, the practice of a profession, if this does not require 
the passing of examinations or further special preparation, or all the foregoing, 
according to the scope of the recognition. 
The UNESCO recommendation relates to admission to graduate school and training programs and 
eligibility to practice in a profession. Nowhere does it suggest that a three-year degree must be 
deemed equivalent to a four-year degree for purposes of qualifying for a class of individuals defined 
by statute and regulation as eligible for immigration benefits. More significantly, the 
recommendation does not define "comparable qualification." At the heart of this matter is whether 
the beneficiary's degree is, in fact, the foreign equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate. The UNESCO 
recommendation does not address this issue. 
also relies on other opinion letters, none of which carry the weight of peer-reviewed 
published materials on evaluating Indian degrees. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a document entitled "Study Particulars" prepared by Hindu 
College, Guntur, part of Nagarjuna University, which indicates that the beneficiary completed a total 
of 1,940 hours, including 506 hours of Physics, 506 hours of Chemistry and 408 hours of Math. The 
record contains no explanation as to how this document compares with the evaluations stating that 
the beneficiary completed 120 credit hours total. The petitioner also submitted Internet materials 
from Dallas Baptist University indicating they require 126 credits hours for a baccalaureate and from 
the University of Iowa indicating they require 120 credit hours for a baccalaureate. The petitioner 
did not submit information about the number of math credits required for a baccalaureate in math. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 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; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even 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 of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Cornrn'r. 1972)). 
Given the above inconsistencies, we have reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education 
(EDGE) created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officer 
(AACRAO). As stated in our previous notice, AACRAO, according to its website, is "a nonprofit, 
voluntary, professional association of more than 10,000 higher education admissions and registration 
professionals who represent approximately 2,500 institutions in more than 30 countries." AACRAO, 
http:llwww.aacrao.orrrjabout/ (accessed November 6, 2008) (copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding). Its mission "is to provide professional development, guidelines and voluntary 
standards to be used by higher education officials regarding the best practices in records 
management, admissions, enrollment management, administrative information technology and 
student services." Id. According to the login page, EDGE is "a web-based resource for the 
evaluation of foreign educational credentials" that is continually updated and revised by staff and 
members of AACRAO. Dale E. Gough, Director of International Education Services, "AACRAO 
EDGE Login," http://aacraoedne.aacrao.ordindex.php (accessed November 6, 2008, 2008) (copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding). 
Authors for EDGE are not merely expressing their personal opinions. Rather, 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. "An Author's Guide to Creating AACRAO 
International Publications" 5-6 (First ed. 2005), available for download at 
www.aacrao.or9/publications/guide to creating international publications.pdf. 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. at 11-12. 
Our notice advised the petitioner that while the director appears to have accepted that the 
beneficiary's Master of Science in Chemistry is equivalent to a U.S. Master's degree, the section in 
EDGE relating to the Indian educational system provides that a Master's degree following a three- 
year bachelor's degree "represents the attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's 
degree in the United States." 
More significantly, EDGE provides the following information regarding a three-year Bachelor of 
Science from India: "The Bachelor of ArtsIBachelor of Commerce/Bachelor of Science represents 
attainment of a level of education comparable to two to three years of university study in the United 
States. Credit may be awarded on a course-by-course basis." 
Based on this juried opinion, the AAO concluded that the beneficiary's baccalaureate in this matter 
is only equivalent to three years of undergraduate education from a regionally accredited institution 
in the United States. 
The AAO also noted that AACRAO's Project for International Education Research (PIER) 
publications also contradict the evaluations submitted on appeal. Significantly, the petitioner 
submitted the covers of A P.I.E.R. Worbhop Report on South Asia: The Admission and Placement of 
Students $-om Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lank (1986) and the P.I.E.R. World Education 
Series India: A Special Report on the Higher Education System and Guide to the Placement of Students 
in Educational Institutions in the United States (1997). Yet, the petitioner did not submit copies of any 
of the contents of either publication that might support the evaluations contained in the record. Instead, 
the etitioner submits an opinion piece in ADSEC News by 
 fiom April 2005 quoted in Dr. 
dh evaluation. We acknowledge that this opinion article proposes the possibility of considering a three-year degree after completion of a CBSE or CISCE-Grade secondary school certificate as 
equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate. The record in this matter, however, contains no evidence the 
beneficiary received a CBSE or CISCE-Grade secondary school certificate before attending Nagarjuna 
University. In all other situations, the ADSEC News opinion piece recommends only that a three-year 
baccalaureate in combination with a postgraduate diploma be considered for graduate admission. This 
opinion piece is not consistent with the evaluations asserting that the beneficiary's three-year degree 
alone is equivalent to a four-year baccalaureate in the United States. Regardless, the record contains no 
evidence that any peer-reviewed publication on evaluatin Indian degrees has adopted the opinion 
expressed in the ADSEC News piece. Significantly, is also the author of the peer-reviewed 
EDGE materials referenced above, which supersedes the 2005 non-juried opinion piece in ADSEC 
News. 
One of the PIER publications also reveals that a year-for-year analysis is an accurate way to evaluate 
Indian post-secondary education. A P.I.E.R. Workshop Report on South Asia at I80 explicitly states 
that "transfer credits should be considered on a year-by-year basis starting with post-Grade 12 year." 
The chart that follows states that 12 years of primary and secondary education followed by a three- 
year baccalaureate "may be considered for undergraduate admission with possible advanced 
standing up to three years (w semester credits) to be determined through a course to course 
anal sis." This information seriously undermines the evaluations submitted fiom 
 and 
both of whom attempt to assign credits hours for the beneficiary's three-year 
baccalaureate that are equal to the 120 credits typically required for a U.S. baccalaureate. 
A United States baccalaureate degree is generally found to require four years of education. Matter 
of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1977). While we will consider claims that a particular 
program less than four year in duration is accelerated, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve 
any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 59 1-92 (BIA 1988). The 
petitioner has not resolved the internal inconsistencies between the evaluations submitted and the 
EDGE and PIER materials discussed above. Thus, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
beneficiary's three-year degree from Nagarjuna University is a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. 
baccalaureate. 
Qualifications for the Job Offered 
As noted above, the ETA Form 9089 in this matter is certified by DOL. DOL's role is limited to 
determining whether there are sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified and available and 
whether the employment of the alien will adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers 
in the United States similarly employed. Section 2 12(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. 5 656.1 (a). 
Page 9 
It is significant that none of the above inquiries assigned to DOL, or the remaining regulations 
implementing these duties under 20 C.F.R. 8 656, involve a determination as to whether or not the alien 
is qualified for a specific immigrant classification or even the job offered. This fact has not gone 
unnoticed by federal circuit courts. See Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F. 2d 
1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984); Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 
The AAO is bound by the Act, agency regulations, precedent decisions of the agency and published 
decisions from the circuit court of appeals from whatever circuit that 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). 
Relying in part on Madany, 696 F.2d at 1008, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit (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. 8 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 DOL that stated the following: 
The labor certification made by the Secretary of Labor ... pursuant to section 
21 2(a)[(5)] 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 certzjkation in no way indicates that the alien offered the 
certijied 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 certifl 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. 8 2 12(a)[(5)], 8 U.S.C. 8 1 182(a)[(5)]. 
 The INS then makes its own 
determination of the alien's entitlement to sixth preference status. Id. 8 204(b), 
8 U.S.C. 8 1 154(b). See generally K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 
1008 9th Cir. 1983). 
Page 10 
The INS, therefore, may make a de novo determination of whether the alien is in fact 
qualified to fill the certified job offer. 
Tongatapu, 736 F. 2d at 1309. 
The key to determining the job qualifications is found on ETA Form 9089 Part H. This section of 
the application for alien labor certification, "Job Opportunity Information," describes the terms and 
conditions of the job offered. It is important that the ETA Form 9089 be read as a whole. 
Moreover, when determining whether a beneficiary is eligible for a preference immigrant visa, 
USCIS may not ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional requirements. 
See Madany, 696 F.2d at 1015. USCIS must examine "the language of the labor certification job 
requirements" in order to determine what the job requires. Id. The only rational manner by which 
USCIS 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. See 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 alien employment 
certification application form. See id. at 834. USCIS cannot and should not reasonably be expected 
to look beyond the plain language of the labor certification that DOL has formally issued or 
otherwise attempt to divine the employer's intentions through some sort of reverse engineering of 
the labor certification. 
On the ETA Form 9089, Part H, the petitioner indicated that a bachelor's degree in Computer 
Science or Electrical Engineering plus 60 months of experience is required for the job. The 
petitioner indicated that Mathematics was an acceptable alternative field of study. The petitioner did 
not indicate that an alternate combination of experience and education would be acceptable. The 
petitioner did indicate that a foreign educational equivalent is acceptable. Thus, regardless of 
whether the beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that he has a bachelor's degree in one of the requisite fields or a foreign 
educational equivalent. 
As stated above, the petitioner has not resolved the inconsistencies relating to the beneficiary's 
credentials such that we can conclude that the beneficiary has the foreign educational equivalence to 
a U.S. baccalaureate. Moreover, it is not clear that the beneficiary's degree is the foreign 
educational equivalence to a U.S. baccalaureate in one of the subjects listed on the alien employment 
certification: Computer Science, Electrical Engineering or Mathematics. The evaluations conclude 
that the beneficiary's three-year degree, purportedly equivalent to 120 credits, is a degree in Math, 
Chemistry and Physics. The petitioner has not established that it is possible to obtain a U.S. or 
foreign equivalent baccalaureate with a major concentration in three separate subjects with only 120 
total credits. The record does not establish that the beneficiary's math credits correspond with the 
math credits required for a U.S. baccalaureate in math. Thus, the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary meets the requirements of the alien employment certification. 
Page 11 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.