sustained EB-2 Case: Healthcare It

(b)(6)
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 
DATE : NOV 0 7 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
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) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF -REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. This is a non-precedent 
decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non­
precedent decisions. 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. 
Thank you, 
~d.ri'erg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center 
(the director), and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The director's 
decision will be withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained. The petition will be approved. 
The petitioner is a healthcare IT solutions firm. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in 
the United States as a product manager, clinical solutions. The petitioner requests classification of 
the beneficiary as an advanced degree professional pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 1 As required by statute, the petition is 
accompanied by ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, approved 
by the United States Department of Labor (DOL). The director determined that the beneficiary did 
not meet the minimum requirements of the labor certification. The director denied the petition on 
October 4, 2013. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). To be eligible for approval, a beneficiary must have all the education, training, and experience 
specified on the labor certification as of the petition's priority date. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 
16 I&N 158 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977). The priority date ofthe petition is December 13, 2012, which 
is the date the labor certification was accepted for processing by the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
The Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140) was filed on May 17, 2013. 
Upon review of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and in response to a notice of 
derogatory information and notice of intent to dismiss (NDVNOID) we issued, we conclude that the 
petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that the beneficiary had all the education, 
training, and experience specified on the ETA Form 9089 as of December 13, 2012. Accordingly, the 
petition is approved under section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
As always in visa petition proceedings, the burden of proof rests entirely with the petitioner. See 
section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The 
petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The director's decision dated October 4, 2013 is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained. 
The petition is approved. 
1 
Section 203(b)(2) of the Act provides immigrant classification to members of the professions holding advanced degrees, 
whose services are sought by an employer in the United States.