dismissed EB-2 Case: Web Development

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER Of- U-H 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Admini st rative Appeals Office 
DATE : MAY 10, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALI EN WORKER 
' . 
The Petiti oner, a healthcare management comp any, seeks to emp loy the Benctici ary as a w eb 
develope r consu ltant. It requ ests class ification of the Beneficiar y as a skilled worker under the third 
pr~t'crence immigran t cla ss ification. Immigration and Nationa lity Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(J)(A)( i), 8 U.S.C. * 1153(b)(3)(A) (i). This empl oyment -based (EB -2) immigrant 
c lass ification allows a U.S. emplo yer to spon sor a foreign national for lawfu l p ermanent residen t 
status to wo rk in a position that req uires at least two yea rs of trainin g or ex perienc e. 
The Actin g Director of the Nebras ka Service C enter denied the petition and a subsequent motion to 
reconsid er, conc luding that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's possess ion of the 
minimum , pos t-baccal aureate ex perience required for the offered posi tion. Speci fically, the Director 
detem1in ed that the Beneficiar y's bachelor 's degree was issued in 20 12, and that he did not possess at 
least five years of post-baccalau reate experien ce. 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits additional evidence and assert s t hat the Benefic iary met all of the 
requirem ents for his bach elor 's degree in 1995, and that he obtained the required post -bacca laureate 
experience for the offered positio n thereafter. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appe al. 
I. THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATIO N PROCESS 
Employment-based immigrati on generally follows a three-step process. First, an employe r obtains 
an appr oved labo r cer tificatio n from the U .S. Departmen t of Labor (DOL ). 1 See sectio n 
212(a)(S)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. * ll82 (a)(5) (A)( i). By approving the labor cert ification , the DOL 
certifie s that there are insufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and ava ilable tor the 
offered position and that empl oying a foreign national in the positi on will not ad versely affect the wage s 
and working conditions of dom estic workers similarly employe d. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II) of 
the Act. Second, the empl oye r files an immi grant visa petiti on \.Vith U.S . Citizenship and 
1 The priority date o f a petition is the date the DOL accepted the labor certificat ion for processing , which · in this case is 
Nove mber 2 1, 20 16. See 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(d). 
.
Matter<![ U-H 
Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, if USCIS 
approves tl)e petition, the foreign national applies for an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, 
adjustment of status in the Uhited States. See section 245 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
II. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFERED POSITION 
A beneficiary must meet all of the requirements of the offered position set forth on the labor 
certiticati on by the priority date of the petition. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b)(l), ( 12); Maller (?l Wing ·s Tea 
House, 16 l&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). Here, the labor certification states the 
minimum requirements of the offered position of web developer consultant as a U.S. bachelor's 
degree, or a foreign equivalent degree,2 and five years of related experience. Because the Petitioner 
requests the Beneficiary 's classification as an advanced degree professional, the requisite experience 
must post-date his bachelor's degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining the term "advanced 
degree" to include a "Unit ed States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by 
at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty") (emphasis added). 
Further, the regulations governing the EB-2 classification require the submission of an "official 
academic record" showing the Beneficiary's possessions of a foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). When determining whether a document is an official academic record that 
substantiate s the claimed degree, we may consider whether the document was issued by the 
university in the normal course of business; whether the document was contemporaneously issued 
with events; and whether the document indicates that all requirements tor the degree, in addition to 
the required coursework , have been completed. 
On the labor certification, the Beneficiary attested that, after completing a baccalaureate program at an 
Indian university in 1995, he gained over 18 years of full-time, related experience. He listed qualifying 
experience from 1997 to 2015. The Director, however, found the Beneficiary's experience insufficient. 
The Director measured the Beneficiary's post-bacc alaureate experience from the issuance of his 
diploma in December 2012, concluding that the Beneficiary lacked five years of experience from that 
date. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary obtained his degree in April 1995, when he passed 
the final degree examination. The Petitioner therefore contends that all of the Beneficiary' s experience 
is post-baccalaureate in nature. It asserts that the Director failed to follow the decision in Matter of 0-
A-. Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-03 (AAO Apr. 17, 20 17), to determine whether the Beneficiary 
completed all substantive requirements to earn the degree and the university has approved the degree. 
In Maller (?l 0-A -, we analyzed provisional certificates issued by recognized Indian universities, and 
we stated that: 
[W]e must conduct a case-specific analysis to determine whether, at the time a 
provisional certificate is issued, the individual has completed all substantive 
~The record establishes that the Beneiiciary has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
2 
.
Maller 4 U-H 
requirements to earn the degree and the college or university has approved the degree. 
We must consider evidence presented regarding the individual nature of each 
university's or college's requirements for each program of study and each student's 
completion of those requirements. A petitioner will bear the burden to establish that a 
beneticiary's provisional certificate reflects that, at the time the certiticate was issued, 
all of the substantive requirements for the degree were met and the degree was in fact 
approved by the responsible college or university body. 
On the n1atter of provisional certificates issued by recognized lndia.n universities, the American 
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for 
Global Education (EDGE/ states: 
The Provisional Degree Certificate is evidence of completi on of all requirements for 
the degree in question, the name of the degree and the date upon which it was 
approved by the responsible university governing body, and is comparable to an 
official US academic transcript with a degree statement certifying completion of all 
requirements for the degree, the name o f the degree and the date upon which it was 
approved by the academic senate at universities in the United States.4 
In Malter of' 0-A-, although the beneticiary received a bachelor's diploma from an Indian university in 
2007, we measured her post-degree experience from the date of a "provisional certificate" the university 
issued her in 2006. !d. at 4-5. Thus, we found that the provisional certiJ-icate, together with the 
beneficiary's marks statements and a letter from a school official explaining the administrative delay in 
the issuance of her diploma, established her satisfaction of all substantive degree requirements and her 
school's approval of the degree. !d. 
In this case, as noted by the Director, the Beneficiary has not provided a provisional certificate. 
Instead, the Petitioner submitted the following documents: 
• Bachelor of Science (Technology) diploma issued to the Beneficiary by the University of 
. The diploma states that it was conferred at the convocation on December 30, 20 12, 
and that the Beneficiary passed his examination for the degree in April 1995. 
• Statement of marks issued by University of indicating that the Beneficiary passed 
his examination for the B.Sc. (Tech.) degree in April 1995. 
• Special certi licate issued by the University of on October 30, 20 I 0. It states that the 
Beneficiary passed his examination for his degree in April 1995: and that he "is eligible for 
.1 AACRAO is "a nonprofit voluntary, professional association of more than II ,000 higher education professionals who 
represent approximately 2.600 institutions in over 40 countries.'' http://www4.aacrao.org!centennial/about.htm (last 
visited Apr. 25, 20 18). According to its registration page, EDGE is "a web-based resource for the evaluation of foreign 
educational credentials." http://
cdge.aacrao.org/info.php (last visited Apr. 25, 20 18). 
4 
See India: Provisional Degree Certificme, AACRAO, http://edge.aacrao.org/country/ credential/provisional-degrec­
certificate (last visited Apr. 25, 20 18). 
3 
.
Maller r!f U- H 
conferme nt of the B.Sc. (Tech.) degr ee and the degre e will be conferr ed on him at the 
Convocation of this University on his applying for the same." 
• Lette r dated Septemb er 26, 20 17, from the Univers ity of deputy registra r stating that 
the Beneliciary "passed the degree course examination held in April 1995" and the degree 
was "awa rded to him at the convocati on held on 30th Decem ber 20 12." 
• Letter dated October 5, 20 17, from the Univers ity of depu ty regi strar stating that the 
Benel'iciary "compl eted the degree course and passed tina! examination held by this 
Univer sity in April 1995 ." 
The diplom a, statement of marks, special .certificate , and oth~r univers ity documentation indicate the 
Benefi ciary's passage of a final examina tion in 1995. But, unlike in Maller (~( 0-A-, the reco rd does not 
establish that all of the substantive requir ements for the Beneficiary's degree were met and the 
degree was in fact approv ed by the responsibl e university bod y prior to the diploma's issua nce in 
2012. Specit1cally, whil e the diploma and statement of marks were issued in the norma l course of 
school business con tempor aneo us with the passage of the final exam, they do not indica te that all of 
the subs tanti ve req uiremen ts for the Beneficiary's degree were met and the degree was in fact 
approved by the responsible university bod y prior to the diploma's issuance in 20 12. 
Further, the s pecial certiticate indicates that the Beneficiary was "eligible tor conferment" of the degree 
in 20 I 0, but it docs not state that a ll of the sub stantiv e requirements for the Bene ficiary's deg ree were 
met and that the degree was app roved by the university at that time. Instead, it indicate s that the 
Benetici ary sti ll had to apply for confe rment of his diploma, indicating that the degree had not yet been 
approved by the univer sity. Add itionally, the cert ifica te was issued in October 20 I 0, over 15 yea rs 
a tler the Benel'iciar y's compl etio n of the tin al exa m. Thus, the certificat e was not issued in the 
normal co urse of school business contempor aneous with the passage of his final exam , and it is not 
an official acade mic record. 5 
In addition, the letters from the Universit y of were issued in 2017 apparent ly at the 
Bendiciar y's reques t, over 22 years after the Bene ticiary 's comp letio n of the tina! exa m and aft.er 
con tennent or the Beneficiary's act ual degree In 20 12. Thus, the letters were not i ssued in the 
normal co urse o f schoo l busine ss contemporaneou s with the passage of his fi nal exa m, and thus , 
they arc not o llicial academic records. Mor eover, the letters do not establish that all of the 
substantive requirements lor the Beneticiary' s degree were met and the degree was in fact approved 
by the respo nsible university body prior to the diploma's iss uance in 2012 . 
5 Even if the special certificate constituted an official academic record confirming the Beneficiary's degree in October 
20 I 0. the Beneficiary did not have fi ve years of qualifying post-baccalaureate experience from October 30, 20 I 0, to the 
priority date on November 2 1, 20 16. Specifically. during that period, the record establishes the Beneficiary's qualifying 
experience from October 30, 20 I 0, to March 18, 2015, which is less than the required five years. Although the Beneficiary 
indicates thnt he had ndditional experience with the Petitioner from March 19. 20 15, through the priority date, his experience 
was in the otTcrcd job of web developer consultant. A labor cen ification employer cannot rely on experience that a foreign 
national gained with it. unless the experience was in a job substantially different than the offered position or the employer 
demonstrates the impracticality of training a U.S. worker for the oflered position. 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(3). The record does 
not suppor1 the use of the experience the Beneficiary gained with the Petitioner as qualifying experience for the offered job. 
4 
.
Mauer of U-H 
The record also contains two eva luations of the Beneficiary's educati on. The first evaluat ion state s 
that the Ben etic iary's bach elor of science in techn olog y was "awa rded in April 1995" and that the 
"degree was issued in Decemb er 20 12." It doe s not clarif y the d iffere nce bet·wee n the awa rdin g and 
the issuance of the degree, and does not state that all of the substanti ve requ irement s for the 
Beneficiar y's degree were met and that the degree was in fact app roved by the respon sible univ ersity 
body prior to the diploma' s issuance in 2012 . The second evaluation states that the Beneficiary 
completed his degree requir eme nts in 1995. It states that the Univer sity of did not star t 
issuing prov isional certificates until July 2010 . Prior to Jul y 2010 , the evaluati on states that the 
universit y iss ued specia l certilicates similar to the o ne pro vided by the Beneticiary. 6 Howe ver, in 
this case , the special certilicatc issued by the Uni versity of is dated October 30, 20 10. If 
the Univer sity of star ted issuing provi siona l certificate s in .July 20 I 0, it is uncl ear why t he 
Benefici ary submitted a special certificate instead of a p rov isional certitlcate to estab lish the 
issuance of his degree in this case. Also, as noted previously, the specia l certificate does not state 
that all of the substantive requi rements for the Benet-iciary's degree were .met and that the degree \Vas 
approved by the Univers ity. 
users may , in its discr etion, usc as advisory opini ons statements submitted as ex pert testimony. 
Howev er, where an opinion is not in accord with other informati on or i s in any way que stion able, 
USCIS is not r equired to acce pt or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron 
internation al, 19 l&N Dec. 79 1 (Co mm'r 1988). See also Mat!er of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 
20 II) (expert witness testimony may be given di fferent weight depending on the ex tent of the 
expert' s qua litica tions or the rele vance, reliability, and proba tive val ue of the test imony); Viraj, LLC 
v. US All'y Gen., 20 14 WL 4178338 *4 ( lith Cir. 2014) (we are enti tled to give lette rs fro m 
profes sors and academic credentials eva luation s less weight whe n they differ from t he informatio n 
provided in EDGE) . The evalu ations in this case do not establ ish the Benefici ary 's satisfact ion of all 
substantive degree requirem ents a nd his school ' s approval of the degree before the issuance of his 
degree diploma in 20 12. 
In thi s case , the Petition er has not demonstrated the Beneficiar y's possess ion, by the petition's priority 
date, of the requisite live years or post-baccalaurea te experience req uired for the offe red pos ition. We 
will therefore aftinn the Director' s deci sion. 
6 
The evaluati on does not indicat e the diiTerence (s) between a provi s ional certifica te and a special certificate , if any. 
5 
.
Matter (~f U-fl. ( 
ll!. CONCLUS ION 
The record on appeal does not establish that the Beneficiary met all of the requirements of the 
offered position set forth on the labor certi tication by the priority date of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller of"U-H ID# 1264123 (AAO May _10, 2018) 
6