sustained EB-2 Case: Software Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG 1 8 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
FILE#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Services 
Admini strative Appeals Offi ce (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washin gton, 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 Nation ality 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. 
Rosenberg 
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 the matter 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director's decision will be withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained.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 wireless communications 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 priority date of the labor certification is 
December 20, 2013. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). The director's decision concluded that the petitioner 
did not establish that the beneficiary met the minimum requirements of 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. 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 )(!), (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 Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) was filed on 
June 5, 2014. 
Upon review of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and in response to our June 
19, 2015 Request for Evidence (RFE), we conclude that the petitioner has established that the 
beneficiary met the minimum requirements of the labor certification by the priority date and that it has 
the 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 January 23, 2015 is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained. 
The petition is approved. 
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).