sustained EB-2 Case: Software Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 1 8 2015 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
U.S. DcpartmentofHomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Adminis trati ve Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washing ton, DC 20529-20 90 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
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 is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
Thank you, 
~fnberg 
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decision will be withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 software development and testing business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
permanently in the United States as a lead software 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 (labor 
certification), certified by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The director 's decision concluded 
that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary met the minimum educational requirements 
as stated on the labor certification. 
The record shows that the appeal is properly filed, timely and makes a specific allegation of error in 
law or fact. The procedural history in this case is documented by the record and incorporated into 
the decision. Further elaboration of the procedural history will be made only as necessary. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). We consider all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly submitted 
upon appeal.1 
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 United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above the baccalaureate level. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The regulation further 
states: "A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's 
degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United 
States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree." /d. 
The beneficiary must meet all of the requirements of the offered position set forth on the labor 
certification by the priority date of the petition. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(1), (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 priority date of the petition is December 17, 2012, which is the 
date the labor certification was accepted for processing by the DOL. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(d). The 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140) was filed on April23, 2014. 
Upon review of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and in response to OJ.lr April 
10, 2015 Request for Evidence (RFE), we conclude that the petitioner has established that the 
beneficiary meets the minimum education requirements of the labor certification as of the December 17, 
1 
The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, which are 
incorporated into the regulations by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1). The record in the instant 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 
Page3 
2012 priority date. Further, the petitioner has established its continuing ability to pay the proffered 
wage. Accordingly, the petition is approved under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
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). The petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The director's decision dated November 13, 2014 is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained. 
The petition is approved.