dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Consulting

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
SEP 272011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Ikparlml'nt of Homeland S('('udly 
(I.S. Ci!iz-;nshir and Ill1migraliPll SCI' icc''; 
Atiministrali\(' "[,peals Otlicc (:\:\0) 
20 \1assac!Juscth Ah~ .. N.W .. I'v1S 21)<JO 
Wa,hill;H"I1. DC 20S2')-20'i() 
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. § 1153(b )(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been retumed to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have conceming your case mu~t be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(1 )(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~I 
If Perry Rhew ~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
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 a software consulting firm. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in 
the United States as a product lifecycle management consultant pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, an 
ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (ETA Form 9089) 
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 
experience stated on the labor certification. Specifically, the director determined that the 
petitioner failed to demonstrate that the be;wt1;jary possessed the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
master's degree and tive years of experience as required by the certified ETA Form 9089 prior to 
the priority date. 
The record shows that the appeal is properly and timely filed, 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. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneticiary's education in France is equivalent to a U.S. 
master's degree based on three separate cre~i~~l"t:al evaluations. 
In pertinent part, 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 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. § 
204.5(k)(2). The regulation further 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. 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a d~' j,()1!(J basis. See Soltane v. DO}, 381 F.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence 
properly submitted upon appeal. 1 
The beneficiary possesses a Diplome d'lngenieur from Centre d'Etudes Superieures des 
Techniques Industrielles (CESTI) in France on November 17, 1998. The English translation of 
the diploma is an Engineering Diploma from the CESTI issued by Superior Studies Center of 
1 The submission of additional evidence O!1?~pE"l is allowed by the instructions to the Form 1-
290B, which are incorporated into the regulations by the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103.2( a)(l). 
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). 
Page 3 
Industrial Techniques. Thus, the issues are whether that the Diplome d'Ingenieur is a foreign 
degree equivalent to a U.S. master's degree or a U.S. baccalaureate degree. 
Eligibility for the Classification Sought 
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 United States 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 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 656.1(a). 
It is significant that none of the above inquiries assigned to DOL, or the remaining regulations 
implementing these duties under 20 C.F.R. § 656, involve a determination as to whether or not the 
alien is qualified for a specific immigram cJ(~s::;tfjcation or even the job offered. This fact has not 
gone unnoticed by federal circuit courts. See Tvngatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 
F. 2d 1305,1309 (9th Cir. 1984); Madanyv. 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); R.L. Inv. Ltd. Partners v. INS, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1022 (D. Haw. 2000), aff'd273 F.3d 
874 (9th Cir. 2001) (unpublished agency decisions and agency legal memoranda are not binding 
under the AP A, even when they are published in private publications or widely circulated). 
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). This decision involved a petition filed 
under 8 U.S.c. §1153(a)(3) as amended in 1976. At that time, this section provided: 
Visas shall next be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are members 
of the professions .... 
The Act added section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(A), which provides: 
Visas shall be made available ... to qt,:.;jified immigrants who are members ofthe 
professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent .... 
Significantly, the statutory language used prior to Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. at 244 is 
identical to the statutory language used subsequent to that decision but for the requirement that 
the immigrant hold an advanced degree or its equivalent. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the 
Committee of Conference, published as part of the House of Representatives Conference Report 
on the Act, provides that "[in] considering equivalency in category 2 advanced degrees, it is 
anticipated that the alien must have a bachelor's degree with at least five years progressive 
experience in the professions." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 955, IOlst Cong., 2nd Sess. 1990, 1990 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6784, 1990 WL 201613 at *679.6 (Oct. 26, 1990). 
Page 4 
At the time of enactment of section 203(b )(2) of the Act in 1990, it had been almost thirteen 
years since Matter of Shah was issued. Congress is presumed to have intended a four-year 
degree when it stated that an alien "must have a bachelor's degree" when considering 
equivalency for second preference immigrant visas. We must assume that Congress was aware 
of the agency's previous treatment of a "bachelor's degree" under the Act when the new 
classification was enacted and did not intend 10 alter the agency's interpretation of that term. See 
Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-81 ;,J (78) (Congress is presumed to be aware of 
administrative and judicial interpretations where it adopts a new law incorporating sections of a 
prior law). See also 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991) (an alien must have at least a 
bachelor's degree). 
In 1991, when the final rule for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 was published in the Federal Register, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (the Service), responded to criticism that the regulation 
required an alien to have a bachelor's degree as a minimum and that the regulation did not allow 
for the substitution of experience for education. After reviewing section 121 of the Immigration 
Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649 (1990), and the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of 
Conference, the Service specifically noted (1:,:'L b;)th the Act and the legislative history indicate 
that an alien must have at least a bachelor's degree: 
The Act states that, in order to qualify under the second classification, alien 
members of the professions must hold "advanced degrees or their equivalent." As 
the legislative history ... indicates, the equivalent of an advanced degree is "a 
bachelor's degree with at least five years progressive experience in the 
professions." Because neither the Act nor its legislative history indicates that 
bachelor's or advanced degrees must be United States degrees, the Service will 
recognize foreign equivalent degrees. But both the Act and its legislative history 
make clear that, in order to qualiJ)' :1:', a;;Tofessional under the third classification 
or to have experience equating to an advanced degree under the second, an alien 
must have at least a bachelor's degree. 
56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991) (emphasis added). 
There is no provision in the statute or the regulations that would allow a beneficiary to qualify 
under section 203(b )(2) of the Act as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
with anything less than a full baccalaureate degree. 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.,,2 In 
order to have experience and education cq:I:1Cng to an advanced degree under section 203(b)(2) 
of the Act, the beneficiary must have a single degree that is the "foreign equivalent degree" to a 
2 Compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) (defining for purposes of a 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. 
-Page 5 
United States baccalaureate degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). As explained in the preamble to the 
final rule, persons who claim to qualify for an immigrant visa by virtue of education or 
experience equating to a bachelor's degree may qualify for a visa pursuant to section 
203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act as a skilled worker with more than two years of training and 
t:xperience. 56 Fed. Reg. at 60900. 
For this classification, advanced degree professional, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requires the submission of an "official academic record showing that the 
alien has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree." For classification 
as a member of the professions, the regulmion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(l)(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." We cannot conclude that the evidence 
required to demonstrate that an alien is an advanced degree professional is any less than the 
evidence required to show that the alien is a professional. To do so would undermine the 
congressionally mandated classification scheme by allowing a lesser evidentiary standard for the 
more restrictive visa classification. Moreover, the commentary accompanying the proposed 
advanced degree professional regulation specifically states that a "baccalaureate means a 
bachelor's degree received from a college or university, or an equivalent degree." (Emphasis 
added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30306 (July 5, 1991). (f 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) (relating to 
aliens of exceptional ability requiring the :~:.Jhnission of "an official academic record showing 
that the alien has a degree, diploma, certt/icate or similar award from a college, university, 
school or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability"). In this case, 
the petitioner did not submit the beneficiary'S transcripts from the educational institute where the 
beneficiary received his foreign equivalent degree. Therefore, the petitioner failed to submit an 
official academic record showing that the alien has a United States master's or bachelor's degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree. 
We have reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) created by the 
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). According 
to its website at http://vv'\vw.aacrao.(lrg;'in.de.\,<1;;p~, "AACRAO is a nonprofit, voluntary, 
professional association of more than 11.00U 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 (accessed 
July 28, 2011). Its mission "is to serve and advance higher education by providing leadership in 
academic and enrollment services." Id. According to the home page for EDGE, EDGE is "a 
web-based resource for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials." 
bJJ.Q;f/aacraoedge.aacrao.org (accessed July 28, 2011). Authors for EDGE are not merely 
expressing their personal opinions. Rather, they must work with a publication consultant and a 
Council Liaison with AACRAO's National Council on the Evaluation of Foreign Educational 
Credentials.3 If placement recommendations are included, the Council Liaison works with the 
author to give feedback and the publicatior; i:;;:~Jbject to tinal review by the entire Council. Id. 
3 See An Author's Guide to Creating AACRAO International Publications available at 
http://www.aacrao.org/Libraries/Publications _Documents/GUIDE_TO _CREATING _ INTERNA 
TIONAL PUBLICATIONS l.sflb.ashx - -
Page 6 
EDGE confirms that while the Diplome d 'hginieur awarded upon completion of three years of 
post-secondary study in the second cycle program in engineering in France is not the foreign 
equivalent degree to a U.S. master's degree, it represents attainment of a level of education 
comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. In order to have experience and 
education equating to an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, the beheficiary 
must have a single degree that is the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate 
degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Here the beneficiary's Diplorne d'Ingenieur from France 
represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
engineering in the United States. 
Counsel submits an educational evaluation pn,;pared by 
opinion letters from 
November 5, 2008 (Appel) 
3, 2008 (Nemes) in support the 
Trustforte's evaluatIOn. Trustforte's report states that the beneficiary was 
awarded a master's level Diplorne d'Ingenieur by the Superior Institute of Materials and 
Mechanical Construction upon completion of his three-year engineering program of the _ 
_ following his completion of one year of requisite studies in a Baccalaureat program and 
two years of requisite studies in a classe preparatoire program. Thus, based on the six years of 
progressive undergraduate and graduate studies and the fact that the beneficiary surpassed the 
minimum year and credit requirements lor H U.S. master's degree, the report concludes that the 
beneficiary attained the equivalent of a !'1L,~tcr of Science Degree in Engineering from an 
accredited United States university. 
The Trustforte evaluation and the expert opinion letters provide inconsistent conclusions with 
EDGE. EDGE confirms that all Baccalaureat programs represent attainment of a level of 
education comparable to completion of senior high school in the United States and completion of 
a Classe Preparatoire aux Grandes Ecoles (CPGE) program represents attainment of a level of 
education comparable to two years of university study in the United States. The Trustforte's 
evaluation that considers the one year Baccalaureat program as a part of the beneficiary's 
undergraduate studies is misplaced. Although the two years of CPGE may represent two years 
of college studies, there is no evidence showing that the three-year Diplorne d'Ingenieur program 
at the Superior Institute of Materials anJ i\/l~'\.hanical Construction is a master's degree level 
program or includes master's degree level education as a part of the program, nor is it clear that 
the program requires the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree for entering the program. While 
the evaluator disputes EDGE's conclusion on this evaluation, she did not provide any 
documentary evidence to support her challenge to EDGE. In addition, USCIS considers EDGE 
to be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of information about foreign credentials equivalencies. 4 
4 In Confluence Intern., 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 fou;?;) 1\1at USC IS had properly weighed the evaluations 
submitted and the information obtained from EDGE to conclude that the alien's three-year 
foreign "baccalaureate" and foreign "Master's" degree were only comparable to a U.S. 
Page 7 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, 
USCIS is not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron 
International, 19I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988). Accordingly, in the instant case, the 
Trusteforte's evaluation and the supporting expert letters from Appel and Nemes are advisory 
statements. The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed a u.s. master's 
degree or equivalent prior to the priority date. 
Therefore, the beneficiary has a "United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree," and thus, meets the minimum level of education required for the equivalent of an 
advanced degree, namely a Bachelor's degree, for preference visa classification under section 
203(b)(2) of the Act. However, to qualify for the second preference classification, the 
beneficiary must establish that he possessed at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty after his bachelor's equivalent degree but prior to the priority date. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(/.i-Y J) states in pertinent part: 
Evidence relating to qualifying experience or training shall be in the form of 
letter(s) from current or former employer(s) or trainer(s) and shall include the 
name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties 
performed by the alien or of the training received. If such evidence is 
unavailable, other documentation relating to the alien's experience or training will 
be considered. 
The record contains two letters from the beneficiary's former his 
employment history. The first letter is dJb, I, }·iovember 15,2006, from 
In this letter, 
that the beneficiary was employed by the company during the period November 2, 1998 to April 
30, 2003 as a . . . 
and signed by 
America in California. Sunir Jain certifies that the beneficiary was employed by _ 
_ during the period May 30,2003 to June 5, 2006 as a full-time product 
~ consultant. Both letters include a specific description of the duties the 
beneficiary performed and verify that the experience with these two companies is progressive 
and was obtained post-bachelor's degree and prior to the priority date. The AAO finds that these 
two experience letters meet the requirement;: set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), and therefore, the 
petitioner has established that the benef:dary possessed at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty after his bachelor's equivalent degree but prior to the priority date. 
bachelor's degree. In Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc. 2010 WL 3325442 (E.D.Mich. August 20, 
2010), the court upheld a USCIS determination that the alien'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 itself required a degree 
and did not allow for the combination of education and experience. 
Page 8 
The beneficiary has a "United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree," and 
also has at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty, and thus, meets the 
minimum educational requirements for preference visa classification under section 203(b )(2) of 
the Act. 
However, we must also consider whether the beneficiary meets the job requirements of the 
proffered job as set forth on the labor cecti [!cation. 
Qualifications for the Job Offered 
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 detennination appesy~ tn be delegated to the INS under section 
204(b), 8 U .S.C. § lI54(b), as one of the determinations incident to the INS's 
decision whether the alien is entitled to sixth preference status. 
KR.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 
212(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 employn)('r~\ of the alien under the terms set by the 
employer would adversely affecl the wages and working conditions of similarly 
employed United States workers. The labor certification in no way indicates that 
the alien offered the certified job opportunity is qualified (or not qualified) to 
perform the duties of that job. 
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citing KR.K Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006, 
revisited this issue, stating: "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 certifica(ior~) "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 
.. 
Page 9 
requirements. See Madany, 696 F.2d at 10 15. U SCIS must examine "the language of the labor 
certitication 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' 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. 
In this matter, Part H, lines 4 and 7, of the tabor certification reflects that a master's degree in 
engineering or engineering related field is the minimum level of education required. Line 9 
reflects that a foreign educational equivalent is acceptable. Line 8 reflects that no combination 
of education or experience is acceptable in the alternative. Lines 6 and 10 reflect that the 
proffered position also requires 60 months (five years) of experience in the job offered or in the 
related occupation as a software engineer or PLM consultant in addition to the educational 
requirements. The plain language of the labor certification clearly requires a master's degree in 
engineering or related field and five years of experience in the job offered or in related 
occupation for the proffered position. Line 14 reflects specific skills or other requirements, 
including experience with solution deploy]D~nt for 3D design and Product Data Management in 
manufacturing, business process analysi~j ill Automotive/Aerospace/Fabrication industry, 
utilizing CAD CAM software (CATIA V5), Product Data Management software (ENOVIA 
LCA) and software development utilizing CNext (C++, COM Based), Visual Basic, and data 
modeling (UML). 
The beneficiary set forth his credentials on the labor certification. On the section of the labor 
certification eliciting information of the beneficiary's work experience, he represented that he has 
been working in the proffered position for the petitioner since June 5 . to he worked 
as a product lifecycle management consultant for 
May 1, 2003 to June 5, 2006 and as an application engineer for 
from November 2, 1998 to April 30, 20()J. Uc does not provide any additional 
concerning his employment background on that tC)rm. 
The record of proceeding also contains a Form G-325, Biographic Information sheet submitted in 
connection with the beneficiary's application to adjust status to lawful permanent resident status. 
On that form under a section eliciting information about the beneficiary's employment last five 
years, he represented the same employment history as what he represented on the labor certification 
above a warning for knowingly and willfully falsifYing or concealing a material fact. 
While the beneficiary presents his eight years and eight months of experience in the job offered 
or related occupation prior to the priority C?Jf:, fit least five years of the experience would be 
applied towards establishing that the beneticiary meets the minimum educational requirements of 
the proffered position. Thus, the beneficiary does not possess five years of experience in the job 
offered or related occupation which also meets the special skills or other requirements set forth 
.. 
Page 10 
in Line 14. Therefore, the beneficiary does not meet the job requirements on the labor 
certification. 
In addition, as previously discussed, the record contains two letters from the beneficiary's former 
employers concerning his employment history. Although these two letters together establish the 
beneficiary's seven years and six months ()f qualifying experience, including the five years of 
progressive experience in his specialty after his foreign bachelor equivalent degree but prior to 
the priority date, they failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed another two years and six 
months of experience in the job offered or related occupation which also meets the specific 
requirements set forth in line 14 of the labor certification. The record does not contain any other 
regulatory-prescribed evidence concerning the beneficiary's qualifying experience for the 
proffered position. Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed five 
years of experience in the job offered or related occupation in addition to the five years of 
progressive experience in the specialty prior to the priority date, and thus, the beneficiary does 
not meet the job requirements on the labor certification. For the reason mentioned above, the 
petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains 
entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.