sustained EB-2 Case: Software Development

1. . . ;,r2fed to 
prevent deady un->fr~arranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042. 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
 .%3 
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. 5 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
i/ 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be sustained; the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner is an electronic document technology business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
permanently in the United States as an application developer pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2). As required by statute, the petition 
was accompanied by certification from the Department of Labor. The director determined that the 
beneficiary does not meet the job requirements set forth on the labor certification. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a new employment letter. 
In pertinent part, section 203(b)(2) of the Act 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. An advanced degree is a U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above the baccalaureate level. The equivalent of an advanced degree is either a U.S. 
baccalaureate or foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of "progressive experience" in 
the specialty. 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2). 
The beneficiary holds a baccalaureate degree in a field relevant to the position sought plus more than 
five years of experience. The issue 
 is "progressive." Initially, 
the petitioner submitted two 
 serts that the beneficiary was a 
"previous colleague who 
 9." According to Mr. the 
beneficiary worked full-time as a software developer. Frangois Leblanc, Director of Silanis, confirms 
that the beneficiary worked there from November 1999 to December 2004 as a full-time software 
developer. 
On August 11,2005, the director requested evidence that the beneficiary's experience was progressive. 
In response, the petitioner resubmitted the letter from Mr. The director concluded that the 
record did not establish that the beneficiary made progress or advancement toward increasingly 
le duties. On appeal, the petitioner submits new letters from Mr.and Mr. 
serts that while athe petitioner "became a senior C++ developer." Mr. 
addition to his initial responsibilities, [the beneficiary] gradually took on the 
responsibility of assisting in the overall development of the software architecture as well as the design 
of sub-systems of the products he was working on." 
On ameal. counsel references a March 20. 2000 memorandum. Educational and Ex~erience 
a* , 
Requirements for Employment-Based Second preference (EB-2) ~mkgrants, from - 
Acting Associate Commissioner for the Office of Programs and William Yates, Deputy Executive 
Associate Commissioner for the Office of Field Operations. On page 3, the memorandum states: 
It is reasonable to infer that highly technical positions are progressive in nature due to 
the constant state of change in their respective industries. This is not to say, however, 
Page 3 
that five years of post-baccalaureate experience in a highly technical position 
automatically translates to an advanced degree in every case. As with any adjudication, 
a petition seeking classification for an EB-2 advanced degree professional should be 
decided on a case-by-case basis. 
The beneficiary works in a highly technical position. Thus, we can infer that his experience was 
progressive. The letters submitted on appeal confirm such an inference. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The decision of the director dated September 6, 2005, is withdrawn. The appeal is 
sustained and the petition is approved.