dismissed EB-3 Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE II, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a supermarket, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an accounting system expert.· It 
requests classification of the Beneficiary as a professional under the third preference immigrant 
category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based "EB-3" immigrant classification allows a U.S. 
employer to sponsor a professional with a baccalaureate degree for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, finding that the Beneficiary did not 
have a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree and therefore did not meet the minimum 
educational requirement for the job under the terms of the labor certification and did not quality lor 
classification as a professional. The Petitioner filed an appeal, which we dismissed. Like the Director, 
we found that the Beneficiary did not have the requisite degree to meet the minimum educational 
requirement of the labor certification and to quality for classification as a professional. We also found 
that the evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary had the experience required by the 
labor certification. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
Upon review, we will grant the motion to reopen in part and deny it in part. We will withdraw our 
finding that the Beneficiary lacks the experience required by the labor certification, but affirm our 
finding that the Beneficiary does not have the requisite educational degree to meet the terms of the labor 
certification and quality tor professional classification. We will deny the motion to reconsider. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider must be 
supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, a statutory or regulatory provision, or a 
statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) policy. /d. We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benetit. 
.
Mauer of M-S-. Inc. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A petition tiled for professional classification must be accompanied by evidence that the beneficiary 
holds a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C). A 
beneficiary must also meet all of the education, training, experience, and other requi rements of the 
labor certification as of the petition 's priority date. 1 See Maller of Wing 's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 
158, 150 (Acting Reg') Comm 'r 1977). In our decision dismissing the appeal , we found that the 
Beneficiary's three-year bachelor of commerce degree from the in India is not 
equivalent to a bachelor's degree from a U.S. college or university, which generally requires four 
years of study. See Matter (lShah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977). We concluded that the 
Beneficiary does not meet the minimum educational requirement of the labor certification, which is 
a bachelor's degree in commerc e or accounting or a foreign educational equivalent, and does not 
qualify for classification as a professional because she does not have a U.S. bachelor's degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree . We also found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
had five years of prior employment as an accounts manager or accountant , as required by the labor 
certification. While the labor certification claimed that the Beneficiary had more than tive years of 
qualif ying employment with in India, during the years 1996-2002 , no 
employment verification letter was submitted from as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A). 
Furthermore, two other employment verification letters in the record, in addition to containing 
certain inconsistencies, were from companies not listed in the labor certification as prior employers 
of the Beneficiary. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
I. Beneficiary's Education 
The Petitioner asserts that we did not give due weight in our analysis of the Beneficiary 's educat ion 
to the two evaluations it submitted from and which claim that the 
Beneficiary's three-year Indian degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor 's degree. The Petitioner 
focuses on the footnote at the bottom of page 6 of our decision in which we noted some anomalies in 
the Beneficiary ' s transc ripts that should be explained in any future proceedings , and sugges ts that 
our finding that the Beneficiary does not have the U.S. equivalent of a bachelor's degree rested on 
doubts about the veracity and reliability of the transcripts. The Petitioner submit s an affidavit from 
the Beneficiary which addresses the various anomalies identified in our footnote, accompanied by 
another document from the identifying the Benefici ary as a student in April 
I 993. Based on these materials we are satisfied that the Beneficiary earned a three-year bachelor's 
degree at the As explained in our previous decision , however, a three-year 
bachelor's degree from an Indian univers ity, like the Beneficiar y's bachelor of commerc e from the 
, is not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Establishing the veracity of the 
Beneficiary ' s transcript s doe s not overcome this .infirmity, and gives no credence to the claims in the 
1 The "priority date" of a petition is the date the underlying labor certification is filed with the Department of Labor. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). In this case the priority date is June 17, 20 I I. 
2 
.
Matter of M-S-. Inc. 
and evaluations that the Beneticiary 's three-year Indian degree is equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree. Thus, the new materials submitted on motion do not overcome our previous 
finding that the Beneficiary does not have the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. As such, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary has the minim um level of education required by 
the terms of the labor certification and for classification as a profes sional. 
2. Beneficiary's Experienc e 
As further evidence of the Beneficiary's experience , the Petitioner submit s a letter from which 
meets the substantive requirements of 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A) and states that the Benetlciary 
was employed as an account s manager in on a full-time basis from May 1996 through 
January 2002. In her aftid avit the Beneficiary states that she had a secon d job during her time with 
and specifically refers to her work for As discussed in o ur previous 
decision, the record includes a letter from in certifying that it employed 
the Benefici ary in a computer-related position from November 1998 to November 2002. 2 While the 
overlapping employment claimed by the Beneficiary does bear scrutiny , we are persuaded by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary was employed as an account s manager by 
as claimed in the labor certification, from May 1996 to Januar y 2002. Accordingly, we find that the 
Beneficiary meets the minimum experience requir ement of the labor certification, and has overcome 
this ground for denial. · 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner does not allege that our decision dismis sing the appeal was based on any incorrect 
application of law or policy, as required by 8 C.F .R. § 1 03.5(a)(3). Nor does the Petitioner cite any 
precedent or adopted decision , any statutory or regulatory provision, o r any statement of users or 
DHS policy in support of its motion to reconsider. Therefore, we will deny this motion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
On motion the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary 
has more than five years of qualifying employment and therefore meets the experience requirement 
of the labor certification. However, the Petitioner has not establi shed that the Beneficiary possesses 
a U.S. bachel or's degree or a foreign equivalent degree. Therefor e, the Beneticiary does not meet 
the minimum educational requirement of the labor certifi cation and does not qualify for 
classificati on as a professional. Accordingly, the Petition er has still not establis hed the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for the immigrant benefit sought in this proceeding and the petitio n remain s denied. 
2 The Beneficiary's affidavit does not mention any other prior employment, though as discussed in our previous decision 
the record includes a letter from . in which certified that it employed the Beneficiary as a 
computer programmer ITom April 1994 to June 1998. 
3 
Maller of M-S-. Inc. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted in part and denied in part. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter <![M-S-. Inc. 10# I 548730 (AAO June II, 20 18) 
4