sustained EB-2 Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 3 1 2015 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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. 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, 
J:::A.�--�R osenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be sustained, the director's decision will be withdrawn, and the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner describes itself as an IT consulting and development business. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary permanently in the United States as a programmer analyst. The petition is accompanied 
by an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification), 
certified by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The director determined that the beneficiary does 
not possess a single degree that is determined to be the foreign equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree to qualify as an advanced degree professional under section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The director denied the petition accordingly. 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). 
In pertinent part, section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b )(2), 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. 
The petitioner must establish that the beneficiary satisfied all of the educational, training, experience 
and any other requirements of the offered position by the priority date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977); see also Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). 
The labor certification requires a master's or foreign equivalent degree and three years of experience 
as a programmer analyst or related, or a bachelor's or foreign equivalent degree and five years of 
experience as a programmer analyst. The record contains a copy of the beneficiary's Bachelor of 
Science degree from . completed in 1995, and a copy of the beneficiary's 
postgraduate diploma in Management Information Systems and Computer Applications from 
, completed in 1999. 
Upon review of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and in response to a Request 
for Evidence, 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 the 
November 22, 2013 priority date. The petitioner has also demonstrated that it is more likely than not 
that it had the ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(g)(2). Accordingly, the petition is approved under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. The director's decision IS withdrawn, and the petition 1s 
approved.