sustained EB-2 Case: Software Development

(b)(6)
DATE: NOV 1 4 2013 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and ImmigratiO!l Services 
Administrative Appeals Qffice (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Ms 2090 
Washinl!ton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holdi.ng an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(Z) of the lmm'igration 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 (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law not estaNisl1 ~gency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. 
Thank you, 
n~vu'1Mo w 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center, 
and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) ort appeal. The appeal will be 
sustained. The petition will be approved. 
The petitioner is a software development company that seeks to elllploy the beneficiary permanently 
iil the United States ·as a senior support engineer pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, the petition is 
accompanied by an EtA Form 9089, Application for Permanent ·Employment Certification, 
Cipproved by the Upjted States Department of Labor (DOL). Upon reviewing the petition, the 
director determined that the beneficiary did not satisfy the minimum education requirements stated 
oil the labotcettification. Specifically, the director determined that the benefici(lry did not possess a 
U.S. master's degree in computet information systems, engineering, or mathematics or a foreign 
equivalent degree. Therefore, the director 
denied the petition accordingly. 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soliane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, i.:tclu9ii;lg new evidence 
properly submitted upon appeal.1 . 
As set forth in tbe director's denial issued on January 31, 2013, the issue to be considered iil this 
case is whether or not the petitioner possessed a U.S. ma,ster's degree in computer information 
systems, engineering, or mathematics or a foreign equivalent degree. 
In pertinent part, section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1l53(b )(2), provides immigrant classification to members of the professions holding advanced 
degrees or tbeir equivalent (lnd ·whose services are sought by an empioyer in the United States. An 
advanc.ed degree is a United States academic or profession(!! degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above the baccalaureate level. 8 C.F.R. § 2Q4.5(k)(2). The re~lCition fur.tber states: "A United 
States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five ye~rs of 
progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a 
doctoral degree i.s customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree." /d. 
To be eligible fot approval, a beneficiary must have all the education, tr~ning, and experience specified 
on the labor certification as of the petition's priority date. See Matter of Wing's Tcq House, 16 I&N 
158 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977). The priority date of the petition is December 14, 2011; wh_icb. is the 
date the labor certification was accepted for processing by the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). Th.e 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140) was filed on September tO, 2012. 
Upon review of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and evidence S\lbsequently 
sublllitted in response to Request for Evidence issued by the AAO on July .19, 2013, the AAO 
1 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the i~stf\lctions to the Form 
I-290B, which are incorporated into the regulations by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(C1)(1), The 
record in the inst(lnt case provides no reason ·to preclude consideration of any of the documents 
newly submitted on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
concludes that the petitioner has established that it is more likely th<m not that the beneficiary possesses 
a U.S. master' 's degree in computer information systems, engineering, or mathematics or a foreign 
~q~ivalfmJ degree as s~ci[led on the EtA Form 9089 as of December 14; 2011. Thebeneficiary may 
be Classified as a professional holding an advw.ced degree. · Accordingly, the petition is approved · 
under section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
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, § 136l; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). The petitioner has met that butdert. · · 
ORDER: Tbe appeal is sust(,lined, and the petition 1s approved.