dismissed EB-2 Case: Mechanical Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
pmvent clearly unww8"td 
bwtsion of persona1 @V*Y 
U.S. Departn~ent of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. 3 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. $ 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. 3 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Peny Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner claims to provide engineering design services. It seeks to permanently employ the 
beneficiary in the United States as a design 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. 5 1153(b)(2).' As required by 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(4), the 
petition is accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment 
Certification (labor certification), certified by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 
As set forth in the director's March 1, 2007 denial, the primary issue in this case is whether the 
beneficiary's diploma de licenta from Transilvania University of Bragov, Romania is the foreign 
equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in mechanical engineering. 
The record shows that the appeal is properly filed, timely and makes a specific allegation of error in 
law or fact. The procedural history in this case is documented by the record and incorporated into 
the decision. Further elaboration of the procedural history will be made only as necessary. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b); see 
also Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo 
authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9. 
The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly submitted 
upon appeaL2 
The priority date of instant petition is December 4, 2006, the date the labor certification was filed 
with the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(d). On the petition, the petitioner claimed to have been 
established in 1946, to have a gross annual income of over $100 million, and to employ 541 workers. 
The proffered wage stated on the labor certification is $72,000.00 per year. 
Section 203(b)(2) of the Act provides immigrant classification to members of the professions holding 
advanced degrees or their equivalent and whose services are sought by an employer in the United 
 h here is no evidence in the record of proceeding that the beneficiary possesses exceptional ability in 
the sciences, arts or business. Accordingly, consideration of the petition will be limited to whether 
the beneficiary is eligible for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 
2~he submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to Form I-290B, 
which are incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(l). Except as explained in 
footnote 5, supra, the record in the instant case provides no reason to preclude consideration of any 
of the documents newly submitted on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
~tates.~ 
 In order to classify the beneficiary in this employment-based preference category, the 
petitioner must establish that: the labor certification requires an advanced degree professional;4 the 
beneficiary is an advanced degree professional;5 and the beneficiary meets the requirements of the 
job offered as set forth in the labor certifi~ation.~ The petitioner must also establish that it has the 
continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date until the beneficiary obtains lawful 
permanent re~idence.~ 
The issue of whether the beneficiary's diploma de licenta is the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree 
is relevant to whether the beneficiary meets the requirements of the offered position, and to whether 
the beneficiary is an advanced degree professional.8 
It is important to note that the DOL's role in the employment-based immigrant visa process is limited 
to determining whether there are sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified and 
available and whether the employment of the alien will adversely affect the wages and working 
conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. 5 
656.1(a). It is significant that none of the responsibilities assigned to DOL, nor the remaining 
regulations implementing these duties at 20 C.F.R. 5 656, involve a determination as to whether or 
not the alien is qualified for a specific immigrant classification or the job offered. Instead, the 
authority to make this determination rests solely with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS). See Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Tongatapu Woodcraft 
3~he regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2) defines an "advanced degree" as "any United States 
academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate." The 
regulation further states that 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." Id. 
48 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(4). 
'8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
68 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(l), (12). See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Act. Reg. 
Comm. 1977); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Cornm. 1971). 
78 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
8~he stated basis of the denial is that the beneficiary did not meet the definition of an advanced 
degree professional set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3). The AAO will also consider whether the 
petitioner has established that the beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the offered 
position. An application or 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. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F. 2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984); K.R.K. Iwine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 
F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1983). 
USCIS 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 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, Mandany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008 (D.C. Cir. 1983); K.R.K. Iwine, Inc. 
v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1983); Stewart Infra-Red Commissary of Massachusetts, Inc. v. 
Coorney, 661 F.2d 1 (lSt Cir. 1981). To be eligible for approval, a beneficiary must have all the 
education, training, and experience specified on the labor certification as of the priority date. 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l), (12). See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. at 159; see also Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). 
The minimum education, training, experience and skills required to perform the offered position are 
set forth at Part H of the labor certification. In the instant case, the labor certification states that the 
offered position of design engineer requires a master's degree in mechanical engineering or foreign 
equivalent, and 24 months experience in the job offered. The labor certification does not permit the 
beneficiary to qualify for the offered position with a bachelor's degree. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's diploma de licenta and transcript from 
Transilvania University of Bra~ov, Romania; a certified translation of the beneficiary's diploma and 
transcript, prepared by ., dated October 3, 2000; and a foreign 
credential evaluation, luation of Education International Inc., 
dated March 17,2006. 
In her translation, translated the beneficiary's "diploma de licenta" as a "bachelor's degree 
diploma." However, evaluation states that the beneficiary's diploma de licenta is 
equivalent to a master's degree in mechanical engineering from an accredited institution in the U.S. 
Based in part on translation, the director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner 
did not establish that the beneficiary possessed a master's degree in mechanical engineering or 
foreign educational equivalent. 
On appeal, counsel provided a new certified translation of the beneficiary's diploma and transcript, 
prepared byof Trustforte Language Services, dated March 16, 2007. 
translates "diploma de licenta" as "licentiate degree." Counsel also provided a letter I from 
, dated March 13,2007, stating that the beneficiary completed a five-year, full-time course of 
study and confirming the prior evaluation that the beneficiary's diploma de licenta is the equivalent 
of a U.S. master's degree. The letter also states that 
 translation incorrectly translated 
"diploma de licenta" as "bachelor's degree diploma." 
It is noted that evaluation is a one-page document. No evidence was submitted of- 
credentials or expertise to provide an equivalency evaluation of foreign educational 
Page 5 
credentials. 
 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 (Commr. 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 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 Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
Given the inconsistenc between translation and evaluation, and the lack of 
evidence establishing qualifications to issue equivalency evaluations of foreign 
educational credentials, the AAO has reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education 
(EDGE) created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officer 
(AACRAO). 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 co~ntries."~ 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." 
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." 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.12 
In the section relating to the Romanian educational system, EDGE states that a diploma de Iicenta is 
9http://www.aacrao.org/about (accessed August 13, 2009) (copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding). 
http://aacraoedge.aacrao.org (accessed August 13, 2009) (copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding). 
11 
"An Author's Guide to Creating AACRAO International Publications" 5-6 (First ed. 2005), 
http://www.aacrao.org/publications/guide~to~creating - internationalgub1ications.pdf. 
12 
Id. at 11-12. 
a postsecondary-level credential awarded upon completion of a four- to six-year program13 that 
"represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United 
states."I4 ~ased on this juried opinion, we must conclude that the beneficiary's diploma de licenta is 
only equivalent to a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in the United States. 
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. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Accordingly, on August 27, 2009, the AAO issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) the petition, 
instructing the petitioner to provide evidence establislng that the beneficiary's diploma de licenta is 
the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree in mechanical engineering within thirty (30) days of 
the NOID. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8). To date, the petitioner has not responded to the NOID. 
Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary possesses the educational qualifications 
required to perform the proffered position.'5 Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Further, the petitioner's failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry 
is, by itself, grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). The AAO is unable to 
substantively adjudicate the appeal without a meaningful response to the line of inquiry set forth in 
the NOID. 
Therefore, the appeal will be dismissed because the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
meets the educational requirements of the labor certification; the petitioner has not established that 
'3http:/laacraoedge.aacrao.org/credentials.php?country~d=l75&page=l (accessed July 22, 2009) 
(copy incorporated into the record of proceeding). 
14 
http://aacraoedge.aacrao.org/credentialsAdvice.php?countId=l75&credentialID=290 (accessed 
July 22,2009) (copy incorporated into the record of proceeding). 
15~he petitioner also failed to establish that the beneficiary is an advanced degree professional. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(k)(2), defines "advanced degree" as an "academic or professional degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate." A "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." Id. The evidence in the record does not establish 
that the beneficiary has a degree above that of baccalaureate, or a bachelor's degree followed by at 
least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 
the beneficiary is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; and the petitioner failed 
to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry. 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's 
enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. $ 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.