dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Engineering

(b)(6)
U.S. Department oHiomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: DEC 1 9 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: 
PETITION: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen , respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
AAf;~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, (director) denied the employment-based 
immigrant visa petition. Upon a subsequent motion to reopen the director affirmed his decision to 
deny the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner describes itself as a "catastrophe modeling tools and" business. It seeks to 
permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a director of software engineering/vice 
president. 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. PROCEDURALHISTORY 
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 5, 2012. 2 
Part H of the labor certification states that the offered position has the following m1mmum 
requirements: 
H.4. Education: Master's degree in computer science. 
H.5. Training: None required. 
H.6. Experience in the job offered: 36 months. 
H.7. Alternate field of study: Engineering, math or information systems. 
H.8. Alternate combination of education and experience: Bachelor's degree and 5 years of 
expenence. 
H.9. Foreign educational equivalent: Accepted. 
H.lO. Experience in an alternate occupation: 36 months managing software development teams or 
software projects or a software vendor for property insurance. 
H.14. Specific skills or other requirements: No special requirements. Any suitable combination of 
education, training or experience is acceptable. 
Part J of the labor certification states that the beneficiary possesses a bachelor's degree in Electronics 
Engineering from completed in 1998. The record contains a copy of the 
beneficiary's certificate and transcripts from the 
, issued on January 21, 1999. The transcripts indicate that the 
beneficiary passed both Section A and Section B, and the certificate indicates that the beneficiary was 
1 See section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(a)(2). 
2 The 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 
elected an Associate Member of the institution. 
The record also contains an evaluation of the beneficiary's credentials prepared by for 
, on August 23, 2011. The evaluation states that the beneficiary possesses 
"the academic equivalent of a bachelor's degree in electronics engineering from a regionally 
accredited institution in the United States. " 
Part K of the labor certification states that the beneficiary had worked for the petitioner 's subsidiary in 
India as a software engineer from December 7, 2000, through July 16, 2003. The beneficiary also 
indicated that he worked for the petitioner in the following capacities: 
• Senior software engineer from July 23, 2003, through December 31, 2007. 
• "Assist. Vice President/Dir." from January 1, 2008, through May 31, 2012. 
• "Vice President/Director" since April 1, 2012. 
The record contains an experience letter from managing director of Air 
stating that the company employed the beneficiary as a software 
engineer from December 7, 2000, through July 16, 2003. The record also contains an experience 
letter from for the petitioner , confirming 
the beneficiary ' s claimed employment there as detailed 
above. 
On April 29, 2013, the director denied the petition after concluding that the beneficiary 's 
membership in did not constitute the foreign equivalent of a United States (U.S.) bachelor's 
degree. On motion to reopen the petitioner submitted another credentials evaluation from 
c described the process of gaining membership in and summarized that such 
membership should be considered "a 'single source' degree" because the studies, examinations, and 
professional experience were all conducted under the auspices of a single institution. cited 
the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) as indicating that associate membership in 
should be considered the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor ' s degree. On July 8, 2013, the 
director reopened the case and again denied the petition after concluding that the beneficiary did not 
possess the degree required by the labor certification because . was a professional society, not 
a college or university, and therefore could not issue a degree. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that the regulations and statute do not require that the 
institution granting the degree be an actual university or college. Counsel also stressed that the 
government of India recognizes as a degree-granting institution. Counsel again cited EDGE as 
considering . membership to be equivalent to a single U.S. bachelor's degree. Counsel asserted 
that the director erred by noting only the practical experience requirement for membership 
without acknowledging the academic requirements and sought to clarify 
that the experience required for 
membership is not professional experience, but rather academic training. Finally, counsel stated that in 
admitting the beneficiary to its master's degree program, found that the 
beneficiary had the foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
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. 3 The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in 
the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal.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 
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: 
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. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 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. 
DOl, 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 of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
5 See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 
345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 section 212(a)(14) 
determinations are not subject to review by INS absent fraud or willful 
misrepresentation, but all matters relating to preference classification eligibility not 
expressly delegated to DOL remain within INS' authority. 
Given the language of the Act, the totality of the legislative history, and the agencies' 
own interpretations of their duties under the Act, we must conclude that Congress did 
not intend DOL to have primary authority to make any determinations other than the 
two stated in section 212(a)(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.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Relying in part on Madany , 696 F.2d 
at 1008, the Ninth Circuit stated: 
[I]t appears that the DOL is responsible only for determining the availability of 
suitable American workers for a job and the impact of alien employment upon the 
domestic labor market. It does not appear that the DOL's role extends to determining 
if the alien is qualified for the job for which he seeks sixth preference status. That 
determination appears to be delegated to the INS under section 204(b ), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1154(b), as one of the determinations incident to the INS's decision whether the 
alien is entitled to sixth preference status. 
K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1983). The court relied on an amicus brief 
from the DOL that stated the following: 
The labor certification made by the Secretary of Labor . . . pursuant to section 
212(a)(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. 
6 Based on revisions to the Act, the current citation is section 212(a)(5)(A). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
(Emphasis added.) !d. at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citingK.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. !d. § 212(a)(14), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14). The INS then makes its own 
determination of the alien's entitlement to sixth preference status. !d. § 204(b ), 
8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). See generally 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.P.R.§ 204.5(k)(1). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines the terms "advanced degree" and "profession." An 
"advanced degree" is defined as: 
[A]ny United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree 
is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate 
or a foreign equivalent degree. 
A "profession" is defined as "one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation." The occupations listed at section 101(a)(32) of 
the Act are "architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
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. 
When the beneficiary relies on a bachelor's degree (and five years of progressive experience) for 
qualification as an advanced degree professional, the degree must be a single U.S. bachelor's (or 
foreign equivalent) degree. 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, 101st Cong., 2nct Sess. 1990, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6784, 1990 WL 201613 at 6786 (Oct. 
26, 1990). 
In 1991, when the final rule for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 was published in the Federal Register, the legacy 
INS 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 that both 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 qualify as a 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
professional 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). 
In Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006), the court 
held that, in professional and advanced degree professional cases, where the beneficiary is statutorily 
required to hold at least a baccalaureate degree , USCIS properly concluded that a single foreign 
degree or its equivalent is required. 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." 7 In order to have experience and 
education equating to an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, the beneficiary must 
have a single degree that is a "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The beneficiary's degree must also be from a college or university. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requires the submission of an "official academic record showing that the 
beneficiary has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equiv a
lent degree." For 
classification as a member of the professions, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) requires 
the submission of "an official college or university record showing the date the baccalaureat e degree 
was awarded and the area of concentration of study." The AAO cannot conclude that the evidence 
required to demonstrate that a beneficiary is an advanced degree professional is any less than the 
evidence required to show that the beneficiary is a professional. To do so would undermine the 
congressionally mandated classification scheme by allowing a lesser evidentiary standard for the 
more restrictive visa classification . See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 
28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) per APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003) (the basic tenet 
of statutory construction, to give effect to all provisions, is equally applicable to regulatory 
construction). Moreover, the commentary accompanying the proposed advanced degree professional 
regulation specifically states that a "baccalaureate means a bachelor's degree received from a college 
or university , or an equivalent degree." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 30703 , 30706 (July 5, 
1991).8 
Thus, the plain meaning of the Act and the regulations is that the beneficiary of an advanced degree 
professional petition must possess , at a minimum, a degree from a college or university that is a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree. Counsel ' s assertion on appeal that the 
7 Compare 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) (defining for purposes of H-lB nonimmigr ant 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. 
8 Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) (relating to aliens of exceptional ability requiring the 
submission of "an official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate 
or similar award from a college , university, school or other institution of learning relating to the area 
of exceptional ability"). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
regulations and statute do not require that the institution granting the degree be an actual university or 
college is not persuasive. 
In the instant case, the petitioner relies on the beneficiary's membership as being equivalent 
to a U.S. bachelor's degree. As is noted above, the record contains two evaluations of the 
beneficiary's educational credentials prepared by. , which conclude that the beneficiary's 
membership is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor ' s degree. 9 The AAO has reviewed the EDGE 
database that was created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions 
Officers (AACRAO) and cited by in her credentials evaluation and by 
counsel. According to EDGE, membership in "represents attainment of a level of education 
comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States." 
As is explained above, for classification as an advanced degree professional , the beneficiary must 
possess a foreign degree from a college or university that is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
While EDGE concludes that the beneficiary's membership is "comparable to" a bachelor's 
degree in the United States, it is not a degree from a college or university. The is not an 
institution of higher education that can confer a degree. 10 Therefore, the beneficiary possesses the 
"equivalent" of a bachelor's degree rather than a "foreign equivalent degree" within the meaning of 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2). While counsel stresses that both the government of India and 
University have recognized . membership as equivalent to a bachelor's degree for admissions 
purposes, the standards of these institutions are not binding on USCIS. 
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. Therefore, the beneficiary 
does not qualify for classification as an advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the 
Act. 
9 users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitt ed 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. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility. USCIS 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. !d. 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 (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). 
10 See Snapnam es.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertojf, 2006 WL 3491005 *11 (D. Ore. Nov. 30, 2006) 
(finding USCIS was justified in concluding that Institute of Chartered Accountants of India 
membership was not a college or university "degree" for purposes of classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
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 )(1), (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 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 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). 
Where the job requirements in a labor certification are not otherwise unambiguously prescribed, e.g., 
by regulation, USCIS must examine "the language of the labor certification job requirements" in 
order to determine what the petitioner must demonstrate about the beneficiary's qualifications. 
Madany, 696 F.2d at 1015. 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." Rosedale 
Linden·Park Company v. Smith, 595 F. Supp. 829, 833 (D.D.C. 1984)(emphasis added). USCIS's 
interpretation of the job's requirements, as stated on the labor certification must involve "reading and 
applying the plain language of the [labor certification]." Id. at 834 (emphasis added). USCIS 
cannot and should not reasonably be expected to look beyond the plain language of the labor 
certification or otherwise attempt to divine the employer's intentions through some sort of reverse 
engineering of the labor certification. Even though the labor certification may be prepared with the 
beneficiary in mind, USCIS has an independent role in determining whether the beneficiary meets the 
labor certification requirements. See Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 *7 
(D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006). 
In the instant case, the labor certification states that the offered position requires a master's degree and 
36 months of experience, or a bachelor's degree and five years of experience, and allows for a foreign 
educational equivalent. For the reasons explained above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the 
beneficiary possesses a master's degree or a bachelor's degree. 
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. 
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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
an advanced degree under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. The director's decision denying the petition 
is affirmed. 
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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.