dismissed
EB-2
dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Engineering
Decision Summary
The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary's three-year foreign bachelor's degree was not considered equivalent to a U.S. four-year baccalaureate degree. This is a foundational requirement for the EB-2 category, which necessitates either an advanced degree or a U.S. baccalaureate degree (or its foreign equivalent) plus five years of progressive experience.
Criteria Discussed
Advanced Degree Equivalence Foreign Degree Equivalency Educational Requirements
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
ichtQing data deleted tu
mt dearly unwmteo
of prwaal &aey
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090
Washington, DC 20529-2090
U. S. Citizenship
and Immigration
LIN 07 114 52920
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. ยง 1153(b)(2)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF REPRESENTED
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. 5 103.5 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).
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 a software development and services business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary
permanently in the United States as a software engineer 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 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 labor certification.
Specifically, the director determined that the beneficiary did not possess a bachelor's degree in
engineering.
The record shows that the appeal is properly filed and 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.
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. 6 204.5(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 maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b)
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have
in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka
v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AA07s de novo authority
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d
Cir. 1989). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence
properly submitted upon appeal.'
The beneficiary possesses three-year bachelor's degree in civil engineering at the Andhra Pradesh
Hyderabad. At issue is whether the beneficiary's bachelor's degree in civil engineering may be
deemed a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in engineering because it is based on
less than a four-year bachelor's degree.
I The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, which
are incorporated into the regulations by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(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
Eligibility for the Classification Sought
As noted above, the ETA Form 9089 in this matter is certified by DOL. DOL7s 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 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 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 (9'" Cir. 1984); Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
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. $1 153(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. $1 153(b)(2)(A), which provides:
Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are members of the
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, 101" Cong., 2nd Sess. 1990, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6784, 1990
WL 20161 3 at *6786 (Oct. 26, 1990).
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 to alter the agency's interpretation of that term. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-
81 (1978) (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).
Page 4
In 1991, when the final rule for 8 C.F.R. tj 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. 10 1-649 (1 990), 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
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).
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. More specifically, a three-year bachelor's degree will
not be considered to be the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree.
Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. at 245. 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 equating 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 United States baccalaureate degree.
8 C.F.R. fj 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 experience. 56 Fed. Reg. at 60900.
For this classification, advanced degree professional, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(1)(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
Compare 8 C.F.R. fj 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
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). Cf 8 C.F.R.
ยง 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, certrficate or similar award from a
college, university, school or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability").
Because the beneficiary does not have a "United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent
degree," the beneficiary does not qualify for preference visa classification under section 203(b)(2) of
the Act as he does not have the minimum level of education required for the equivalent of an
advanced degree.
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 determination appears to be delegated to the INS under section 204(b),
8 U.S.C. 5 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 (9"' 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 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 certzJication in no way indicates that the alien offered the
certzjed job opportunity is quulzfied (or not qualzJied) 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 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.
Page 6
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, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (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.
In Part H of the Form ETA 9089, you indicate that a bachelor's degree in engineering is required.
You also indicate that five years of experience are required. You indicated that a master's degree in
computer science or information systems and five years of experience would be acceptable in the
alternative. Though the beneficiary possesses the requisite experience, the beneficiary does not
possess the requisite education for the position.
You also submitted two evaluations regarding the eauivalencv of the beneficiarv's educational
-concluded that the beneficiary completed the equivalent of a bachelor of science degree
in computer science. The second evaluation from - of the European-American
University dated August 4, 2007 instead concluded that the beneficiary completed the equivalent of
a bachelor of engineering with a major in civil engineering. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 -
592 (BIA 1988) states:
It is incumbent on the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the
record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or
reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence
pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice.
did not discuss how he reached his conclusions, and generally discussed
credit hours within his analysis of the beneficiary's educational background. He did not go into
detail as to how he made his determinations.
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 (Comrnr. 1988). However, USCIS is
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive
evidence of eligibility; 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 Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). The evaluations of record are not consistent
and provide little support for their determination as to the number of credits.
Given the inconsistencies discussed above and the remaining evidence of record, we have reviewed
the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) created by the American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (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
countries." See http://www.aacrao.org/abo~~t/ (accessed December 19,2009) (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 AAC~~O. of International Education Services, "AACRAO
EDGE Login," http://aacraoedge.aacrao.or~/index.php (accessed December 19, 2009) (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.org/publications/guide to creating
international pub1ications.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 1 1-12.
In the section related to the Indian educational system, EDGE provides that a bachelor of
engineering requires four years of study beyond completion of secondary school. According to
EDGE, the completion of a bachelor of engineering would be comparable to a bachelor's degree in
the United States. However, the beneficiary has not completed a four-year single source bachelor's
degree in engineering.
The beneficiary does not have a "United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree,"
and, thus, does not qualify for preference visa classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Act. In
addition, the beneficiary does not meet the job requirements on the labor certification. For these
Page 8
reasons, considered both in sum and as separate grounds for denial, the petition may not be
approved.
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act,
8 U.S.C. 8 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.