dismissed EB-2 Case: Textile Chemistry

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusett s Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529·2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
JAN 0 3 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 Jaw 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, 
j!,_/({;y 
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. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's 
appeal. After granting the petitioner ' s motion to reopen, the AAO affirmed the appeal's dismissal. 
The matter is now before the AAO on a new motion to reopen by the petitioner. The motion will be 
granted, the AAO's dismissal of the appeal will be affirmed, and the petition will remain denied. 
The petitioner makes and sells inks, primarily for use in the textile screen printing and dyeing 
industry. It seeks to permanently employ the beneficiary in the United States as a textile chemist. 
The petition requests classification of the beneficiary as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U .S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(A). 
An ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification), 
certified by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), accompanies the petition. The petition's priority 
date, which is the date the DOL accepted the labor certification for processing, is February 7, 2009. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( d). 
The director concluded that the pet1t10ner failed to demonstrate the beneficiary ' s qualifying 
educational requirements for the offered position as required by the labor certification and for 
classification as an advanced degree professional. Accordingly, the director denied the petition on 
May 21, 2010. 
On May 22, 2013, the AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The AAO found that the petitioner 
failed to demonstrate that a college or university issued the beneficiary a foreign degree equivalent 
to a U.S. bachelor's degree. For the same reason, on August 21, 2013, the AAO affirmed the 
appeal's dismissal after granting the petitioner's motion to reopen. 
The petitioner now submits another motion to reopen regarding the beneficiary's educational 
qualifications for the offered position. The motion states new facts supported by documentary 
evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The AAO therefore grants the petitioner's motion. 
The record documents the procedural history of this case, which is incorporated into the decision. 
The AAO will elaborate on the procedural 
history only as necessary. 
The AAO reviews cases anew, without deferring to previous legal conclusions. See, e.g., Soltane v. 
Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the 
record, including new evidence properly submitted on appeal and motion. 1 
1 
The instructions to Form I-290B, which are incorporated into the regulations by 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(a)(1), allow the submission of additional evidence on appeal and motion. The record in the 
instant case provides no reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents newly submitted 
on motion. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988). 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
On motion, the petitioner continues to assert that the beneficiary ' s Associate diploma from 
in the United Kingdom constitut es 
a foreign degree 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor 's degree in textile chemistry. The petitioner argues that the diploma , 
which was awarded in 1976, together with the 30-plus years that the beneficiary has since worked in 
the specialty, qualifies him for the offered position stated on the labor certificate and for 
classification as an advanced degree professional. 
The petitioner submits additional documentary evidence from (now known 
as , where the beneficiary studied before receiving his . The 
new materials include: a September 17, 2013letter from the university's head of registry; a copy of 
a page from the school's 1972 prospectus regarding "dyeing and textile chemistry;" and copies of 
the beneficiary 's admission records showing examinations and courses taken. 
The petitioner argues that the new evidence, together with materials previously submitted, 
demonstrate: that the beneficiary enrolled at the school for the purpose of studying to obtain the 
that a authorized to confer degree-level 
credentials; and that the beneficiary ' s is the equivalent of a Bachelor ' s degree with Honours 
from an accredited school in the United Kingdom and therefore the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 
degree. 
Qualifications for the Offered Position and Classification Sought 
Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act provides immigrant classification to qualified members of the 
professions holding advanced degrees. See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(1). 
The term "adv anced degree " means: 
[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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The following materials must accompany a petition for an advanced degree professional: 
(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. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish that the beneficiary possessed all the education, training, and 
experience specified on the labor certification as of the petition's priority date. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l), (12); see also Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l 
Comm ' r 1977); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). In evaluating the 
beneficiary's qualifications for the offered position, USCIS must examine the job offer portion of the 
labor certification to determine the minimum job requirements. USCIS may not ignore a term of the 
labor certification, nor may it impose additional requirements. See K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 
F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1983); Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1015 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Stewart 
Infra-Red Commissary of Mass., Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1981). 
In the instant case, the labor certification states the minimum requirements for the offered position of 
textile chemist as a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree in textile chemistry and 60 
months (5 years) of experience in the job offered. 
The record contains two evaluations of the beneficiary's foreign educational credentials for 
commercial evaluation services and four letters from U.S. university professors, all stating that the 
beneficiary's foreign educational credentials are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 2 However, 
the November 13, 2000 evaluation by for 
concludes that the beneficiary's . "combined " with his prior studies for 
technician certificates, equals a U.S. Bachelor of Science degree. 
As discussed in the prior decisions of the director and the AAO, Ms. 's evaluation conflicts 
with other expert opinions in the record and does not demonstrate the beneficiary's educational 
qualifications for the offered position specified on the labor certification or for classification as an 
advanced degree professional. Parts H.4 and H.9 of the ETA Form 9089 state that the position 
requires a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree. In Part H.8 of the form, the 
petitioner indicated that "no" alternate combination of education and experience was acceptable. The 
labor certification therefore states the minimum educational requirements for the offered position as 
a U.S. bachelor's degree or a single foreign equivalent degree. 
2 
US CIS may, at its discretion, treat expert statements as advisory opinions. See Matter of Caron Int 'l 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS retains ultimate authority to determine 
a petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. Expert letters are not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility. USCIS may evaluate whether the contents of the letters support the petitioner's eligibility. 
!d. at 795. USCIS may afford less weight to opinions that are uncorroborated, inconsistent with other 
information, or questionable in any way. !d. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190, 193 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)); Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 2011) (expert testimony may be given different 
weight depending on the extent of the expert's qualifications and/or the relevance, reliability, and 
probative value of the testimony). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
Classification as an advanced degree professional also requires a U.S. bachelor's degree or a single 
foreign degree equivalent (followed by 5 years of progressive experience in the specialty). An 
advanced degree equivalency requires "[a] United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (emphasis added). The grammatical number of the 
regulation is singular, indicating that the advanced degree equivalency requires a single foreign 
equivalent degree, as opposed to a combination of multiple foreign education credentials. 
The legislative history of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649 (1990), also supports the 
interpretation that an advanced degree equivalency requires a single foreign degree equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree. Congress' conference committee on the 1990 act stated: "[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. 101-955 
(Oct. 26, 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6784, 6786. 
Also, the record does not establish that the beneficiary obtained the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in the specified field of textile chemistry. 
The labor certification allows for only one field of study: textile chemistry. In Part H. 7 of ETA Form 
9089, the petitioner states that "no" alternate field of study is acceptable. But the educational 
evaluations and letters from professors in the record equate the beneficiary ' s to U.S. 
bachelor's degrees in different fields. 
The letter from of states that the beneficiary 's 
equals a U.S. Bachelor of Science degree in "color science." The letters of Dr. 
of and Dr. of do not 
identify any specific equivalent fields of study. Dr. . letter states that the beneficiary 's 
allows him to pursue U.S. graduate studies in a "textile related" field, while Dr. letter 
states that his is suitable to pursue U.S. graduate studies in "fashion and textiles." 
Therefore, at least three of the professors' letters do not establish that the beneficiary possesses the 
foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in the required field of textile chemistry. Moreover, 
the inconsistencies among the evaluations and the letters cast doubt on their accuracy and reliability. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec.582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (a petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in 
the record by independent, objective evidence). 
In addition, the record does not establish that a college or university issued the beneficiary ' s 
As indicated in the AAO's prior decisions, the beneficiary of an advanced degree professional 
petition must possess , at a minimum, a degree from a college or university that is either a U.S. 
bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree. 
When the Service proposed the advanced degree regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k), it stated that a 
"baccalaureate means a bachelor's degree received from a college or university, or an equivalent 
degree." 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30706 (July 5, 1991) (emphasis added). Also, members of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
professions in the third preference category must submit "an official college or university record 
showing the date the baccalaureate degree was awarded and the area of concentration of study." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) (emphasis added). The AAO cannot conclude that an advanced degree 
professional in a higher preference category enjoys lower requirements without undermining the 
immigrant preference scheme of Congress. See APWU v. Potter , 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. Sept. 15, 
2003) (citing Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Inv. Fund, L.P., 51 F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995)) (the 
basic tenet of statutory construction - to give effect to all provisions - also applies to regulatory 
construction). 
The record contains a copy of the March 26, Royal Charter of Incorporation for 
the organization that issued the beneficiary's The charter states the 
society's objectives, which include the encouragement, initiation, and stimulation of education and 
research in the field of color science. The charter also outlines three classes of the society: fellows; 
associates; and members corporate. But the charter does not expressly authorize the society to confer 
educational degrees, nor does it state that an is the equivalent of a bachelor ' s degree. 
The appears to be a professional organization, rather than a college 
or university . Its website states: "The [society] is a professional, chartered society. " See "About Us," 
(accessed Dec. 6, 2013). The 
petitioner itself concedes in its letter accompanying the instant motion that the society is "not itself a 
college or university. " Thus, the petitioner has not established that 
a college or university issued the 
beneficiary a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
For the foregoing reasons, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has failed to establish that the 
beneficiary possesses the minimum educational qualifications for the offered position as required by 
the labor certification and for classification as an advanced degree professional. 
Ability to Pay the Proffered Wage 
Beyond the previous decisions of the director and the AAO, the record also does not establish the 
petitioner's continuing ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage.3 
A petitioner must establish its ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage as of the petition ' s 
priority date and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent resident status. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(g)(2). Evidence of ability to pay "shall be in the form of copies of annual reports , federal tax 
3 The AAO may deny a petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law, even 
if the director did not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer 
Enters., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001) , aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th 
Cir. 2003); see also Soltane, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts review on a de novo 
basis). 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
returns, or audited financial statements" for each relevant year, beginning with the year of the 
petition's priority date. Jd. 
As previously indicated , the instant petition's priority date is February 7, 2009. The record contains a 
copy of the petitioner's 2008 federal income tax return. But the record does not contain copies of its 
annual report, federal tax return, or audited financial statements for 2009 pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) . 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a profit and loss statement for the period from January 2009 
through September 2009. The profit and loss statement, however, is not accompanied by an auditor's 
report advising that the financial information in the statement is presented fairly in all material 
respects. The record therefore does not establish that the profit and loss statement is audited as the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) requires. Unaudited financial statements reflect only the 
representations of management. Management's unsupported representations do not establish a 
petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. See Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190, 193 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)) (going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence does not meet the burden of proof in these 
proceedings). 
The AAO's Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) the petitioner's appeal, dated March 20, 2013, 
requested copies of the petitioner's annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements 
for 2010, 2011, and 2012. In response, the petitioner provided copies of its federal tax returns for 
2010 and 2011, and a copy of a 2012 balance sheet. The record contains no evidence that the balance 
sheet was audited. The petitioner also does not explain the absence of the 2012 documents required 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) and requested by the AAO's NOID. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103 .2(b )(14) ("Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall 
be grounds for denying the beneficiary request.") 
The petitioner ' s failure to provide annual reports, federal tax returns , or audited financial statements 
for each relevant year, from the year of the petition 's priority date onward , warrants dismissal of the 
appeal. While a petitioner may submit additional evidence to establish its ability to pay the proffered 
wage, it may not substitute additional materials for evidence required by regulation. 
Accordingly, the AAO finds that the petitioner has failed to establish its continuing ability to pay the 
beneficiary's proffered wage from the petition 's priority date onward. 
Intent to Employ in the Offered Position 
Also, the record is unclear as to whether the petitioner intends to employ the beneficiary in the 
offered position of textile chemist. 
A labor certification remains valid only for the "particular job opportunity" stated on the ETA Form 
9089. 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(c)(2); see also Matter of Sunoco Energy Dev. Co., 17 I&N Dec. 283, 283 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1979) (upholding the Service's denial of a petition based on a violation of the regulation 
at 20 C.F.R. § 656.30(c)(2)). A petitioner must also establish that it intends to employ the beneficiary 
pursuant to the terms of the labor certification. Matter of lzdebska, 12 I&N Dec. 54, 55 (Reg' I Comm 'r 
1966) (the Service properly denied a petition where the petitioner failed to establish that he intended to 
employ the beneficiary as a live-in domestic worker as the labor certification specified). 
In the instant case, the offered position stated on the labor certification is textile chemist, with a 
proffered wage of $26.59 per hour, or $55,307.20 per year for a 40-hour work week.4 However, 
evidence indicates that the petitioner began employing the beneficiary in a more responsible position 
at a greater wage rate before the labor certification's filing. 
The record shows that the beneficiary petitioned for himself as an alien of extraordinary ability 
under section 203(b )(1)(A) of the Act, concurrently filing 1-140 petitions with applications for 
adjustment of status in 2007 and 2008. Forms G-325A, Biographic Information, which accompanied 
the adjustment applications and which the beneficiary signed and dated on October 15, 2007 and 
June 23. 2008, respectively, state that he had worked for the petitioner as ' 
of its" "since March 2003. Both Forms 1-140, which the beneficiary signed 
and dated on November 2, 2007 and June 23, 2008, respectively, state his occupation as " 
of ."and his annual salary as $93,000. 
The beneficiary also stated on the instant labor certification that he worked as "president " for 
from August 6, 2008 until at least February 7, 2009, the 
date the labor certification was filed.5 He described as an "ink 
technology /manufacturing" business at the same address as the petitioner. He stated that his job 
duties as president included: directing and coordinating the organization's financial and budget 
activities; conferring with board and staff members to discuss issues, coordinate activities , and 
resolve problems; analyzing operations to evaluate the performance of the company and its staff; 
4 The petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker , states a proffered wage of 
$1,800 per week, which the AAO calculates as equaling $93,600 per year. However, the labor 
certification, the petitioner's December 15, 2009letter of support , and the petitioner's April 17,2013 
response to the AAO ' s NOID state the lesser proffered wage amount of $26.59 per hour, or 
$55,307.20 per year. The 
preponderance of the evidence establishes the lesser amount as the 
proffered wage. 
The beneficiary's identification of his employer on his 2007 and 2008 Forms G-325A and 1-140 as 
the of the petitioner appears to refer to 
However, online records of the California Secretary of State's Office indicate that 
was established on April 28, 2003 and is a separate entity from the 
petitioner. See :accessed Dec. 7, 2013). The online records state 
that the beneficiary and the petitioner's president are officers of : 
and that the beneficiary is its registered agent. Jd. USCIS records show that the beneficiary has 
obtained U.S . nonimmigrant visa approvals to work for the petitioner, but not for 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
determining areas of potential cost reductions, program improvements, and policy changes; and 
directing, implementing, and planning policies, objectives, and activities of the organization. The 
beneficiary stated that the petitioner's president supervised him in this position. 
The beneficiary also stated on the labor certification that he worked for the petitioner as "technical 
manager " from March 29, 2003 to August 5, 2008. He stated that his job duties as technical manager 
included: evaluating the use, application, and purchase of chemicals; formulating alternate products 
and minimizing costs; improving efficiency and productivity; initiating development of new 
procedures and methods; coordinating and harmonizing laboratory techniques; and providing 
management with targets and deadlines for cost savings. He stated that the petitioner's president 
also supervised him in this position. 
The labor certification states that the job duties of the offered position of textile chemist include: 
analyzing compounds; developing, researching, improving, and customizing products, formulas , and 
processes; operating a spectrophotometer and interpreting its findings; and conducting, compiling, 
and analyzing test information. 
The occupational titles, job duties, and wages stated on the labor certification and the 2007 and 2008 
Forms G-325A and I-140 indicate that the petitioner began employing the beneficiary before the 
petition's priority date in more responsible and higher-paying positions than the offered position. 
The statements on the labor certification and immigration forms suggest that the petitioner did not 
intend to employ the beneficiary in the less-responsible and lower-paying offered position, as stated 
on the labor certification. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92 (a petitioner must resolve 
inconsistencies in the record by independent, objective evidence). 
The AAO did not advise the petitioner of this derogatory information and afford the petitioner an 
opportunity to rebut the information pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(i). 
Therefore, the AAO makes no finding regarding the petitioner's intent to employ the beneficiary in 
the offered position. However, in any future filings regarding this job opportunity, the petitioner 
must submit evidence to establish its intent to employ the beneficiary in the offered position stated 
on the labor certificate. 
Bona Fides of the Job Opportunity 
In addition, the record is unclear regarding the bona fides of the job opportunity in this matter. 
Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 626.20(c)(8) and 656.3, the petitioner must demonstrate, when asked , that the 
job opportunity stated on the labor certification is bona fide and was clearly available to U.S. 
workers. See Matter of Amger Corp., 87-INA-545, 1987 WL 34178 (BALCA Oct. 15, 1987) (en 
bane). A job opportunity might not be bona fide if the beneficiary is a "blood" relative of the 
petitioner or has other special relationships to the petitioner, such as financial , marital, and/or 
friendship ties. See Matter of Sunmart 374, 2000-INA-93, 2000 WL 707942 (BALCA May 15, 
2000). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
As indicated previously, online California records indicate that the beneficiary and the petitioner's 
president have been principals together in since its 
establishment in 2003. See _ _ (accessed Dec. 6, 2013). Online records of the 
Secretary of State's Office also show that the petitioner's president, the beneficiary, and the 
beneficiary ' s wife are officers of a cosmetics company established on July 
2008. See -
_ (accessed Dec. 6, 2013). USCIS records also show that the 
petitioner petitioned for the beneficiary's wife to obtain nonimmigrant work visa status in 2002 and 
2003. 
The apparent business relationships between the petitioner's president and the beneficiary and the 
beneficiary's wife suggest that the instant job opportunity of textile chemist is not bona fide and is 
not clearly available to U.S. workers. Because the AAO did not advise the petitioner of this 
derogatory information and afford the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the information pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), the AAO makes no finding regarding the bona fides of 
the job opportunity. However, in any future filings regarding this job opportunity, the petitioner must 
submit evidence to establish that the job opportunity was clearly available to U.S. workers. 
Conclusion 
In summary, the AAO grants the petitioner's motion to reopen. After careful review of the record 
and the petitioner's evidence on motion, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not established the 
beneficiary's minimum educational qualifications for the offered position as required by the labor 
certification and for classification as an advanced degree professional. In addition, the AAO finds 
that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate its continuing ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered 
wage from the petition's priority date onward. 
The petitioner's appeal will be dismissed for the reasons stated above, with each considered an 
independent and alternative basis for dismissal. 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The motion is granted, the AAO's decision of August 21, 2013 is affirmed, the appeal 
is dismissed, and the petition remains denied.