dismissed EB-2 Case: Software Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
orevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE.U· OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
l'IAR 3 0 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland 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 
FILE: 
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 returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must 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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
CQD' 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petItIon was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center (Director). It is now on appeal before the Chief, Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO). The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a network services provider for small businesses. 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 Permanent Employment Certification, approved by the United States 
Department of Labor (DOL), accompanied the petition (Form 1-140). 
Section 203(b )(2) of the Act provides for 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. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(k)(2) defines "advanced degree" as follows: 
Advanced degree means any 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. 
The Director determined that the beneficiary did not have an advanced degree, as defined above, and 
did not satisfy the minimum educational requirement for the proffered position, as specified on the 
labor certification. In particular, the Director determined that the beneficiary did not possess a 
master's degree in networking/computer security, CS (computer science), network management, or a 
closely related field, nor a foreign equivalent degree in one of those fields. 
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 of this case is documented in the record and incorporated into 
the decision. 
The first issue on appeal is whether the beneficiary's educational credentials from France are 
equivalent to a U.S. master's degree, which would qualify him for classification as an advanced 
degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. The second issue is whether the beneficiary 
meets the job requirements of the proffered position as set forth on the ETA Form 9089 (labor 
certification). 
Eligibility for the Classification Sought 
As noted above, the ETA Form 9089 in this case is certified by the DOL. The DOL's role is limited to 
determining whether there are sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified and available, and 
whether the employment of the alien will adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers 
in the United States similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 656.1(a). 
Page 3 
It is significant that none of the above inquiries assigned to the DOL, or the remaining regulations 
implementing these duties under 20 CF.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 (9th 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 §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 Immigration Act of 1990 added section 203(b)(2)(A) to the Act, 8 U.S.C §1153(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 except 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 st Cong., 2
nd 
Sess. 1990, 1990 U.S.CC.A.N. 6784, 1990 
WL 201613 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). 
In 1991, when the final rule for 8 CF.R. § 204.5 was published in the Federal Register, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (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, 
-Page 4 
the INS 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 (plus the requisite five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty). More specifically, a three-year bachelor's degree will not be considered to be the 
"foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree. See Matter of Shah, supra. 
Where the analysis of the beneficiary'S credentials relies on work experience and/or a combination 
of multiple lesser degrees, the result is the "equivalent" of a bachelor's degree rather than a "foreign 
equivalent degree." 1 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 plus the requisite five years of 
progressive experience in the specialty. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
For the classification of advanced degree professional the regulation at 8 CF.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" (Plus evidence of five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty). For classification as a member of the professions, the regulation 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 
1 Compare 8 CF.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 
"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. 
§ 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"). 
(Emphasis added.) 
The documentation of record shows that the beneficiary was awarded "Le Diplome d'Ingenieur" 
...... ~.u,~ of' from 
located in Brest and Rennes, Bnttany. 
diploma was awarded on March 14, the beneficiary had completed three years of 
academic coursework in Brest during the years 1997-1999 and 2000-2001. The beneficiary also 
gained some experience with a company in San Francisco, California, from July 1999 to July 2000, 
which was not a part of his academic degree. To qualify for admission to the three-year engineering 
program the beneficiary had to complete a two-year course of preparatory 
study ("classes preparatoires aux Grandes Ecoles") and then pass a competitive entrance 
examination ("Ie concours"). The beneficiary apparently took his "classes preparatoires" at the 
though there is no documentation in the record of that two-year 
program. 
In his decision denying the petition, dated September 17, 2008, the Director determined that the 
petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary'S Diplome d'Ingenieur, representing five years 
of post-secondary study, is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree in engineering. 
On appeal counsel asserts that the Director did not adequately review the documentation submitted 
by the petitioner, including some evaluations of the beneficiary'S educational credentials, 
informational materials about the educational system in France and five-year engineering programs 
at U.S. universities, and previous decisions issued by the AAO in degree equivalency cases. 
Counsel also asserts that the Director over-relied on the Electronic Database for Global Education 
(EDGE), created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO), which states that a Diplome d'Ingenieur is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
engineering. Counsel claims that this finding is faulty, and conflicts with other information in the 
EDGE database indicating that a Diplome d'Ingenieur is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence 
properly submitted upon appeal.2 
2 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to Form 1-290B, 
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). 
Page 6 
The AAO will first address the substance of the Diplorne d'Ingenieur - including the academic 
program required to earn the degree and its place in France's educational system - as gleaned from 
the informational materials submitt~oner and the EDGE database. The Diplorne 
d'Ingenieur is a degree awarded by......- elite schools that operate parallel to France's 
universities. In comparison to the country's universities, which are comprehensive educational 
institutions covering a wide range of fields, the are smaller in size and narrower in 
focus, supplying France with most of its engineers, industrial research specialists, managers and 
administrators. The requires five years of post-secondary study following the 
baccalaureat (equivalent to a U.S. high school education). The first two years of study - focused on 
mathematics and the physical . "classes preparatoire aux ••••••• 
_and or at a lycee (French high school). At the end of 
the two-year students must pass a highly competitive examination (le concours) to 
gain To earn a Diplorne d'Ingenieur, three years of engineering 
studies at a required. The end result is a single degree following five years of post-
secondary s 
In the instant case, the beneficiary followed the normal path of two years in and 
three years in to earn his Diplorne d'Ingenieur. 
As evidence of the U.S. equivalency of this degree, the Director relied primarily upon information in 
AACRAO's aforementioned Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE). According to its 
website, www.accrao.org, AACRAO is "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more 
than 11,000 higher education admissions and registration professionals who represent approximately 
2,600 institutions in over 40 countries." 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 its registration 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 
3 It is possible to enter some Grandes Ecoles after three or four years of study at a university, and 
complete one or two years of additional study at the Grande Ecole to earn a Diplorne d'Ingenieur. 
This scenario does not apply to the beneficiary in this case. 
4 As previously mentioned, there is no documentation in the record of the beneficiary'S two-year 
CPGE program. However, since completion of such a program (and passage of le concours) are 
prerequisites for admission into a Grande Ecole, it is likely that the beneficiary did complete a two­
year CPGE program. The only specific reference thereto is in one of the educational evaluations 
(from which mentions that the beneficiary did his two years of 
preparatory study at in Poitiers. 
Page 7 
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 publications.pdf. If placement recommendations are 
included, the Council Liaison works with the author to give feedback and the publication is subject 
to final review by the entire Council. Id. at 11-12. 
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 Tisco Group, Inc. v. Napolitano, 2010 WL 3464314 
(E.D.Mich. August 30, 2010), the court found that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) 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. 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. 
With regard to the Diplorne d'Ingenieur, EDGE describes it as a "3-year, post-secondary, 2nd cycle 
program in engineering" that is "comparable to a bachelor's degree in engineering in the United 
States." According to counsel, however, EDGE actually supports the petitioner's assertion that the 
beneficiary'S Diplorne d'Ingenieur is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree, once the change in 
France's educational system since 1999 is taken into consideration. 
As explained by counsel, the Bologna Declaration for uniform accreditation of higher education in 
the European Union prompted France to introduce the "Mastaire" by decree in August 1999 as a 
master-level degree to supplement its three existing degrees: baccalaurat, licence, and doctorat. The 
Mastaire required five years of post-secondary study and could be earned in either a university or a 
By decree in April 2002 France changed the name of this degree to "Master" to 
facilItate Its mternational acceptance.) An annotation on the certified English translation of the 
beneficiary'S Diplorne d'Ingenieur (issued on March 14,2002) reads as follows: 
The attribution of the title Engineer holding a diploma from the "ENST Bretagne" 
(Telecommunications School of Higher Education of Brittany), officially gives the 
European rank of "Mastaire" (Masters degree) .... 
Since this language does not appear on the original French language document, it is simply an 
assertion of the translator and has no legal weight. However, the substance of the annotation is 
5 Counsel draws this information from two documents in the record: (1) Trends in Learning 
Structures in Higher Education, Follow-up Report prepared for the Salamanca and Prague 
Conferences of March / May 2001, and (2) France, Implementation of the 'Sorbonne/Bologna' 
Process Objectives (1998-2003), Country Report. 
Page 8 
certified English translation) from of 
October 3, 2008, certifying that the beneficiary's title of 
right of the Master degree. 
The Master, as counsel points out, is the middle degree in France's three-degree structure for 
universities under the Bologna System - Licence / Master / Doctorat, or L-M-D. EDGE describes 
the Licence as three years of post-secondary study at a French university, comparable to three years 
of university study in the United States. EDGE describes the Master as a two-year post-secondary 
program beyond the Licence (resulting in five years of post-secondary study) and comparable to a 
master's degree in the United States. Since EDGE rates the French Master as comparable to a U.S. 
master's degree, and a Dip/orne d'Ingenieur confers the full right of a Master degree in France, 
counsel asserts that, by EDGE's own logic, the beneficiary'S Dip/orne d'Ingenieur is comparable to a 
U.S. master's degree. 
The AAO acknowledges an optical inconsistency in the EDGE analyses of the Dip/orne d'Ingenieur 
vis-a-vis the French Master degree. The AAO notes, however, that the EDGE equivalency analysis 
for the Master focuses on the degree awarded by a university in the L-M-D degree structure - i.e. 
upon completion of a two-year post-secondary program following a three-year Licence. The EDGE 
equivalency analysis does not refer to a Master conferred as a matter of right in conjunction with a 
degree awarded - i.e. upon completion of a three-year post-secondary program 
following a two-year CPGE program. The beneficiary's Dip/orne d'Ingenieur is in this latter 
category of degree that is not addressed in the EDGE equivalency analysis for the Master. 
The AAO also notes that the Dip/orne d'Ingenieur is a first professional degree for engineers in 
France. In the United States the first professional degree for engineers is a baccalaureate, not a 
master's degree. A U.S. master's degree in engineering requires, in general, at least a year of 
additional study beyond a bachelor's degree. Seen in this light, the EDGE assessment of the 
Dip/orne d'Ingenieur as comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree in engineering is consistent with 
U.S. norms.6 
Based on the foregoing analysis, the AAO disagrees with counsel's claim that the EDGE database 
supports the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary'S Dip/orne d'Ingenieur is equivalent to a U.S. 
master's degree. The AAO agrees with EDGE's assessment of the Diplorne d'Ingenieur as 
comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree in engineering. 
6 Another French degree identified in EDGE is the Mastere Professionnel, described as a one-year 
post-graduate program of coursework and internship in a professional field. Entry into the program 
requires a Diplorne from_ According to EDGE, a Mastere Professionnel is 
comparable to a master's degree in the United States. It would appear that a Diplorne d'Ingenieur 
from would qualify an individual for admission to a Mastere Professionnel 
program in France, the successful completion of which would be comparable to a U.S. master's 
degree in engineering. 
Page 9 
Counsel asserts that the beneficiary's five-year Diplorne d'Ingenieur is equivalent to a master's 
degree in the United States that results from a five-year engineering program. The petitioner has 
submitted educational materials from 13 universities and technology institutes in the United States 
that offer integrated five-year bachelor of science/master of science (BS/MS) programs in electrical 
and/or computer engineering. The distinguishing feature of all these BS/MS programs is that the 
students earn a four-year bachelor's degree before they earn a five-year master's degree. No such 
bachelor's degree, or equivalent foreign degree, is incorporated into the French Diplorne 
d'Ingenieur. The CPGE program is the first stage of a Diplorne d'Ingenieur, but is only two years in 
length and does not result in a degree of any kind. Thus, the five-year Diplorne d'Ingenieur in 
France is a single degree program, whereas five-year engineering programs in the United States 
integrate two degrees - a bachelor's degre'e as well as a master's degree. In view of this substantive 
difference between the two degree programs, the AAO concludes that the beneficiary's Dip/orne 
d'Ingenieur is not equivalent to a five-year U.S. master's degree in engineering that incorporates a 
separate bachelor's degree. 
The petitioner has submitted evaluations of the beneficiary's educational credentials from_ 
In 
Binghamton, prepared in August 2008. evaluations assert that that beneficiary's Dip/orne 
d'Ingenieur is equivalent to a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in the United States. 
The FIS evaluation reviews the educational system in France, with particular focus 
the d'Ingeniuer. It indicates that transcripts of the beneficiary's coursework at 
were submitted, but contains no substantive analysis of that coursework. 
Instead, FIS leaps to the conclusion that the Diplorne d'Ingenieur is equivalent to a combination 
bachelor's degree and master's degree in electrical engineering, with a specialization in 
communication systems, from a regionally accredited university in the United States. FIS does not 
explain how it arrived at its conclusion that the single degree Diplorne d'Ingenieur in France could 
be equivalent to a two-degree bachelor and master of engineering in the United States. USCIS uses 
evaluations of a person's foreign education by credentials evaluation organizations as advisory 
opinions only. Where an evaluation is not in accord with previous equivalencies or is in any way 
questionable, it may be discounted or given less weight. See Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817 
(Comm'r 1988). Due to the shortcomings discussed above, the FIS evaluation has little probative 
value as evidence of the U.S. equivalency ofthe beneficiary's Diplorne d'Ingenieur. 
As for evaluation, it does discuss the 
_ in some detail. Like the FIS evaluation, however, equates the single 
degree Diplorne d'Ingenieur in France to two degrees in the United States - in this case, a bachelor 
of science and master of engineering in electrical engineering - without explaining how a first 
degree professional credential in France could be equivalent to a second degree professional 
credential in the United States. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any 
Page 10 
way questionable, however, USCIS is not required to accept or may give less weight to that 
evidence. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988). See also Matter of 
D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 2011)(expert witness testimony may be given different weight 
depending on the extent of the expert's qualifications or the relevance, bative 
value of the testimony). Similar to the FIS evaluation, the AAO concludes that 
evaluation has little probative value as evidence of the U.S. equivalency of the beneficiary's 
Dip/orne d'Ingenieur. 
Counsel cites three decisions issued by the AAO in other immigrant petitions, all unpublished, in 
which five years of post-secondary foreign education was found to be equivalent to a U.S. master's 
degree. All three cases concerned educational credentials from Indian universities. One case 
involved a ar bachelor of science and a two-year master of science in computer science from 
the in which the AAO found the master of science to be equivalent to a U.S. 
master's degree in computer science. AAO decision Dec. 5, 2007.) The second 
case involved a three-year bachelor of science a two-year master of science in physics from 
in which the AAO found the master of science to be equivalent to a U.S. 
master gree m physics. decision Dec. 5, 2007.) The third case 
involved a three- bachelor of commerce and a two-year master of computer management from 
the in which the AAO found the master of computer management to be 
equivalent to a U.S. master's degree in computer management. AAO decision 
Jan. 9, 2008.) 
The three cases discussed above appear to have been incorrectly decided by the AAO. According to 
EDGE, a two-year Master of Science degree that follows a three-year bachelor's degree in India is 
comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. Likewise, a two-year Master of Computer 
Management that follows a three-year bachelor's degree in India is comparable to a bachelor's 
degree in the United States. The AAO is not bound in the instant case by the decisions on those 
Indian degree cases from 2007 and 2008. While the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that 
precedent decisions of USCIS are binding on all its employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Precedent decisions must be designated and published 
in bound volumes or as interim decisions. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.9(a). 7 The AAO concludes that the 
decisions cited by counsel are not persuasive evidence that the beneficiary's Diplorne d'Ingenieur, 
7 The AAO is bound by the Act, agency regulations, precedent decisions of the agency and 
published decisions from the federal 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), a/I'd, 273 F.3d 
874 (9
th 
Cir. 2001) (unpublished agency decisions and agency legal memoranda are not binding 
under the APA, even when they are published in private publications or widely circulated). Even 
USCIS internal memoranda do not establish judicially enforceable rights. See Loa-Herrera v. 
Trominski, 231 F.3d 984, 989 (5th Cir. 2000) (An agency's internal guidelines "neither confer upon 
[plaintiffs] substantive rights nor provide procedures upon which [they] may rely.") 
Page 11 
culminating five years of post-secondary education in France, is equivalent to a master's degree in 
the United States. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has failed to establish 
that the beneficiary is eligible for classification as an advanced degree professional under section 
203(b )(2) of the Act based on his Diplorne d'Ingenieur fro_. 
Qualifications for the Job Offered 
To be eligible for approval under the immigrant visa petition, the beneficiary must have all the 
education, training, and experience specified on the underlying labor certification as of the petition's 
priority date, which is the date the labor certification application was accepted for processing by the 
DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d); Matter a/Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N 158 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977).8 
In this case, the priority date is August 28, 2007. 
The petition cannot be approved unless the beneficiary qualifies for the proffered position under the 
terms of the labor certification. 
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 [immigrant visa 
category] 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 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 certification in no way indicates that the alien offered the 
8 If the petition is approved, the priority date is also used in conjunction with the Visa Bulletin issued by 
the Department of State to determine when a beneficiary can apply for adjustment of status or for an 
immigrant visa abroad. 
Page 12 
certified job opportunity is qualified (or not qualified) to perform the duties of that 
job. 
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citing K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006, revisited 
this issue, stating: "The 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 in Part H of ETA Form 9089. This section of 
the labor certification describes the terms and conditions of the job offered. It is important that the 
ETA Form 9089 be read as a whole. 
When determining whether a beneficiary is eligible for a preference immigrant visa, USCIS may not 
ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional requirements. See Madany, 696 
F.2d at 1015. USCIS must examine "the language of the labor certification job requirements" in 
order to determine what the job requires. Id. The only rational manner by which USCIS can be 
expected to interpret the meaning of terms used to describe the requirements of a job in a labor 
certification is to examine the certified job offer exactly as it is completed by the prospective 
employer. See Rosedale Linden Park Company v. Smith, 595 F. Supp. 829, 833 (D.D.C. 1984) 
(emphasis added). USCIS's interpretation of the job's requirements, as stated on the labor 
certification must involve reading and applying the plain language of the alien employment 
certification application form. Id. at 834. USCIS cannot and should not reasonably be expected to 
look beyond the plain language of the labor certification that the DOL has formally issued or 
otherwise attempt to divine the employer's intentions through some sort of reverse engineering of 
the labor certification. 
Regarding the minimum level of education, training, and experience required for the proffered 
position of software engineer, Part H of the labor certification states the following requirements: 
• Lines 4 and 4-B - The minimum education required is a master's degree in 
networking/computer security, or CS (computer science), network management, or a 
closely related field. 
• Line 6 - Experience in the job offered is not required. 
• Line 7 - An alternate field of study is NOT acceptable. 
• Line 8 - An alternate combination of education and experience is NOT acceptable. 
• Line 9 - A foreign educational equivalent IS acceptable. 
• Lines 10 and lO-B - Experience in an alternate occupation IS acceptable. 
Specifically required - 48 months as a system administration and build/release 
engineer. 
Page 13 
The terms of the labor certification are clear. The employer specified that a master's degree in a 
computer-related field, or a "foreign educational equivalent," is required for the proffered position. 
The employer did not state that a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field plus five or more 
years of progressive experience in the specialty would be considered equivalent to a master's degree, 
as provided in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
post-secondary degree is a Diplorne d'Ingenieur from •••••• 
awarded after two years of preparatory study in a CPGE program and three 
years of study at the According to EDGE, whose broad expertise on the U.S. 
equivalency of foreign educational credentials is recognized by USCIS, a Diplorne d'Ingenieur is 
comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. Based on the EDGE assessment, the AAO 
concludes that the beneficiary does not have a "foreign educational equivalent" to a U.S. master's 
degree. Accordingly, he does not satisfy the educational requirement for the proffered position. 9 
Since the beneficiary does not have a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. master's degree, he does 
not qualify for the proffered position of software engineer under the terms of the labor certification. 
Conclusion 
The beneficiary is not eligible for classification as an advanced degree professional under section 
203(b)(2) of the Act because he does not have a U.S. master's degree, or a foreign equivalent degree, 
in a computer related field. In addition, the beneficiary does does not qualify for the proffered 
position because he does not meet the terms of the labor certification, which require a U.S. master's 
degree or an equivalent foreign degree in one of the stated fields. For these 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. See Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed 
9 The labor certification also requires four years of experience in "system administration and 
build/release engineering" which the beneficiary evidently fulfilled based on letters in the record 
from prior employers.