dismissed EB-3 Case: Accounting

MATTER OF M-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 16, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFF.ICE DECISION 
PETITION: 1-140, 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. 
§ ll 53(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 qualify for 
· 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 qualify 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 
labqr certification. On motion to reopen and reconsider, we withdrew our finding that the Beneficiary 
lacks the experience required by the labor certification, but affirmed our findings that the Beneficiary 
does not have the requisite educational degree to meet the terms of the labor certification and qualify for 
professional classification. The matter is now before us on another motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider. 
Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
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 (OHS) policy. Id. We may• grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
.
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A petition filed 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 requirements of the 
labor certification as of the petition's priority date. 1 See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 
158, 150 (Acting Reg'l 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 Matier o,f Shah, 17 l&N Dec. 244 (Reg'I 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 commerce 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 affirmed these findings in our decision on the Petitioner's initial 
motion(s) to reopen and reconsider. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In its current motion the Petitioner asserts that according to World Education Services (WES), an 
evaluator of foreign educational credentials, a three-year bachelor's degree in India which is earned 
in Division I or [I and awarded by an institution accredited by India's National Assessment and 
Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a grade of A is equivalent to a four-year bachelor's degree in 
the United States. The Petitioner submits a "Certificate of Accreditation" from the NAAC, dated 
April 21, 2012, which accredited the at A grade for a five-year period up to 
April 20, 2017. However, the Petitioner does not submit the alleged evaluation from WES. 
Accordingly, there is no way to assess the probative value of its alleged claim regarding the U.S. 
equivalence of certain three-year bachelor's degrees from India, or the applicability of the WES 
evaluation to the Petitioner's particular degree. 
The Petitioner cites another evaluation from , of Career Consulting International (CCI), 
previously submitted, which concluded that the Beneficiary's three-year bachelor of commerce from 
the is equivalent to a bachelor of commerce degree from an accredited U.S. 
college or university. This evaluation was thoroughly discussed in our initial decision dismissing the 
Petitioner's appeal. We found then that the CCI evaluation had little probative value, and the 
Petitioner has submitted no new fact(s) in the current motion to alter our previous finding. For the 
reasons discussed above, we will deny the motion to reopen. 
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.S(d). In this case the priority date is June 17, 2011. 
2 
Matter of M-S-, Inc. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner does not allege that our prior decision was based on any incorrect application of law 
or policy, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Nor does the Petitioner cite any precedent or 
adopted decision, any statutory or regulatory provision, or any statement of USCIS or OHS policy in 
support of its motion to reconsider. Therefore, we will deny the motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for the reopening or reconsideration of our prior decision, 
nor established eligibility for the immigrant benefit sought in this proceeding. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofM-S-, Inc. ID# 1907689 (AAO Oct. 16, 2018) 
3