sustained EB-2 Case: Software Consulting

(b)(6)
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
FEB 0 6 2014 
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. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant v1sa petition. The 
subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The matter is now 
before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The motion will be granted, the previous decisions of the AAO 
and the director will be withdrawn, and the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner describes itself as a software consulting firm. It seeks to permanently employ the 
beneficiary in the United States as a product lifecycle management consultant. 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 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) state, in pertinent part, that "[a] motion to reopen must state 
the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence." The motion to reopen qualifies for consideration under 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(2) because the petitioner is providing new facts with supporting documentation not 
previously submitted. The delay in filing was reasonable and the circumstances beyond the 
petitioner's control. 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 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 l&N 
158 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977). The priority date of the petition is July 18, 2007, 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 I -140) was filed on August 14, 2007. 
Upon review of the entire record, including evidence submitted on motion and in response to a Request 
for Evidence (RFE) issued by the AAO, the AAO concludes 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 
Form ETA 9089 as of July 18, 2007. The beneficiary may be classified as an advanced degree 
professional because he has earned the foreign equivalent of a United States master's degree in the 
required field from an accredited institution in the United States. Accordingly, the petition is approved 
under section 203(b )(3)(A)(i) or the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(3)(A)(i). 
In summary, the petitioner established that the beneficiary possesses an advanced degree as required 
by the terms of the labor certification and the requested preference classification. Therefore, the 
beneficiary qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. Further, the record reflects that the petitioner has the ability to 
pay the proffered wage as of the closing date before the director. The director's decision denying the 
petition and the AAO decision affirming the denial are withdrawn, and 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Pag
e 3 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted, the previous decisions of the AAO and the director are 
withdrawn, and the petition is approved.