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: FEB. 12. 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 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. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii). 8 U.S.C. 
~ 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based 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. The Director found thai the 
Beneficiary does not have a bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and therefore does not 
meet the minimum educational requirement for the job under the terms of the labor certification and 
does not qualify for classification as a professional under the Act. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by not considering the documentation it 
submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE). The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary"s 
three-year bachelor's degree trom a university in India is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. thereby 
satisfying the minimum educational requirement of the labor certification and qualifying her for 
classification as a professional. 
Upon de nom review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First. an employer obtains 
an approved labor certification (ETA Form 9089. Application tor Permanent Employment 
Certification) from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 1 See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act. 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). By approving the labor certification. DOL certifies that there arc 
insu±Ticient U.S. workers who are able. willing. qualified. and available tor the offered position and 
that employing a foreign national in the position will not adversely affect the wages and working 
conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(l)-(Il) of the 
Act. Second, the employer tiles an immigrant visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
1 
The date the labor certification is filed with the DOL is called the "priority date." See 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(d). 
.
Malter of M-S-. Inc. 
Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third. if USCIS approves the 
petition, the foreign national applies for an immigrant visa abroad or. if eligible. adjustment of status 
in the United States. See section 245 ofthe Act. 8 U.S.C. ~ 1255. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(l)(J)(ii))(C) states that ··ri]f the petition is for a professional, the 
petition must be accompanied by evidence that the [beneficiary] holds a United States baccalaureate 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 
A beneficiary must meet also all of the education, training. experience. and other requirements of the 
labor certification as of the petition ' s priority date. See Malter ol J·Ving 's Tea House. 16 I&N Dec. 
158, 159 (Acting Reg'! Comm·r 1977). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At issue in this case is whether the Beneficiary's foreign degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree, as required to meet the minimum educational requirements of the labor certification and to 
qualify for classification as a professional. Although not address by the Director. we will also 
consider whether the Beneficiary has the experience required to meet the terms of the labor 
certification. For the reasons discussed hereinafter. we conclude that the Beneliciary lacks both the 
education and the experience required for approval of this petition. 
A. Educational Requirements of the Labor Certification 
In this 
case, section H of the accompanying labor certification specilies that the mmmmm 
educational requirement for the proffered position of accounting system expert is a bachelor's degree 
in the field of commerce or accounting, or a foreign educational equivalent. 
Section J of the labor certification states that the Beneficiary's highest level of education with 
respect to the job offered is a bachelor's degree in commerce and accounting from 
India. completed in 1993. 
As evidence of the Beneficiary's education the Petitioner submitted a copy of the Beneficiary's 
diploma which indicates that the Beneficiary passed the "Bachelor of Commerce (Three- Y car 
Integrated Course) degree examination'' in the '·subject of Financial Accounting and Auditing 
(Special)"' in was awarded a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the 
The Petitioner also submitted an "'Evaluation of Academic 
Qualifications and Experience" from 
asserting that the Beneficiary's three-year bachelor of commerce degree from the 
was equivalent to three years of academic coursework at an accredited U.S. college or 
university , that the Beneficiary's eight years of experience in the tield of computer inf(Hmation 
systems were equivalent to at least two additional years of bachelor's level education in the field of 
computer information systems. and that her education and experience combined was equivalent to at 
2 
.
Mafler of M-S-. Inc. 
least a bachelor's degree in computer information systems from an accredited college or univer sity 
in the United States. 
The Director issued an RFE advising the Petitioner that a three-year bachelor of commerce in India 
was comparable to at most three years of university-level study in the United States, which did not 
quality the Beneficiary for the proffered position and the classification requested in the petition. The 
Petitioner was requested to submit additional evidence that the Beneficiary had a baccalaureate level 
degree in commerce or accounting which would meet the minimum educational requirements s tated 
on the labor certification. 
In response to the RFE the Petitioner submitted two new evaluations - one from of 
and the other fi·om of 
that focused solely on the Beneticiary's educational 
credentials. Both evaluations concluded that the Beneficiary' s three-year bachelor of commerce 
from the is equivalent to a bachelor of commerce from an accredited college 
or university in the United States . The Petitioner stated that the new evaluations from and 
were meant to replace the previously submitted ·rhe Petitioner also 
submitted copies of the Beneficiary's transcripts from her three academic years at the 
as well as a swo rn statement from the 
Beneticiary declaring that she attended the from 
July 1990 to April 1993, passed the degree examination in April 1993, and '"to the best of lher] 
recollection' ' attended school 200 days a year, four hours a day. adding up to approximatel y 800 
hours each year and 2400 hour s over three years. 
In his denial decision the Director found that the Beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Commerce 
degree from the is not a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree. The Director stated that a U.S. baccalaureate degree is generally found to require four years 
of education, citing Maller ofS'hah. 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Rcg·l Comm'r 1977). The Director referred 
to information trom India's Department of Education that bachelor's degrees in ce11ain professional 
fields require four years of study , but that bachelor's degrees in other fields such as arts. commerce. 
and science can be earned in three yea rs. The Director noted that a four-year Indian degree may be 
considered equivalent to a U.S . baccalaureate degree, but reiterated that a three-year Indian degree 
such as the bachelor of science at issue in Malter ofShah , would not he considered the equivalent of 
a U.S. baccalaureate degree. The Director also referred to credential advice in the Educational 
Database for Global Education (EDGE), created by the American Association of Collegiate 
Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRA0) 2 which evaluated a bachelor of science degree in 
2 
AACRAO is described on its website as ·•a nonprofit. voluntary. professional association of more than 11.000 higher 
education admissions and registration professionals who represent more than 2,600 institutions and agencies in the 
United States and in over 40 countries." AACRAO, http://www.aacrao.org/about (last visited November 30, 
20 17). "The mission of [AACRAO] is to provide professional development, guidelines, and voluntary standards to be 
used by higher education officials regarding the best practices in records management. admissions. enrollment 
management, administrative information technology. and student services... /d. EDGE is "a valuable resource for 
evaluating educational credentials earned in foreign systems.'' AACRAO EDGE, http://aacrao.orglaacrao-
3 
.
Mauer (?f M-S-. Inc. 
India as comparable to no more than three years of university study in the United States. In this 
case , since the labor certification and the requested classification require a bachelor 's degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree. the Director concluded that the Beneficiary did not qualify for the job 
offered or for classification as a professional. 
On appeal the Petitioner identifies the materials submitted in response to the RFE that were not 
considered in a substantive manner in the Director's decision, including the educational evaluations 
from and which assert that the Beneficiary's three-year bachelor of commerce is 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. several supporting documents appended to the and 
evaluations , and two documents from the American Immigration Lawyers Association 
(AILA). We will consider this evidence now. 
USCIS considers equivalency evaluations of foreign academic credentials only as advisory opinions 
in adjudication process. However. where an evaluation is not in accord with other information or is 
in any way questionable, USCIS is not required to accept it or may give it less weight. See Maffer o( 
Caron International . 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988): Matler of'Sea. Inc .. 19 I&N Dec. 817 
(Comm'r 1988). 
The evaluation asserts that the Beneficiary amassed 160 credit hours in her three-year 
Bachelor of Commerce program, thus exceeding the 120 credit hours which are typical for a four­
year bachelor's degree in the United States. The evaluation places a credit hour numb er of 8. 9, or 
I 0 next to each of the 17 courses the Beneficiary completed. and claims that the equivalency 
evaluation is "based on credentials from the University ... However. no credentials from the 
pertaining to the Beneficiary accompany the evaluation. and the 
Beneficiary's transcripts do not reveal how many credit hour s she received for any of her courses. 
The Beneficiary's own atlidavit claims that she attended school for 2400 hours during her three-year 
degree program, which is unverified and does not explain how her alleged hours of attendance relate 
to the number of credit hours she completed. Thus. the evaluation's conclusion that the 
Beneticiary"s three-year bachelor's degree from the is equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree has little probative value. 
The evaluation , which comes to the same conclusion, is also minimally probative. It claims 
that the Beneiiciary" s alleged 2400 classroom hours equates to 160 semester credit hours. but relies 
exclusively on the Beneficiary 's affidavit regarding the tirst tigure , has no primary documentation of 
the latter figure. and does not explain how the latter figure derives from the first. does not 
address the Beneficiary"s specific coursework at the nor does he indicat e that 
he examined her coursework or transcripts. 
In addition to their internal weaknesses. the and evaluations both conflict \\ith the initial 
evaluation from which concluded that the Beneficiary's three-year Bachelor of Commerce 
solutions/aacrao-international/aacrao·edge/edge (last visited November 30, 20 17). We consider EDGE to be a rei iable. 
peer-reviewed source of information about foreign degree equivalencies. 
4 
.
Maller of M-S-. Inc. 
degree from the is equivalent to three years of coursework at a U.S. college or 
university, not a full bachelor' s degree. Given the deficiencie s and discrepancies present in the 
submitted evaluations, the Director did not err in consulting EDGE. Federal courts have found 
EDGE to be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of foreign educational equivalencies. S'ee. e.g. Viraj. 
LLC v. U.S. Att y Gen., 578 Fed. Appx. 907,910 (lith Cir. 2014) (holding that USCJS may discount 
submitted opinion letters and educational evaluations submitted if they differ from reports in EDGE, 
which is "a respected source of information''). As noted, EDGE indicates that a bachelor of 
commerce degree in India requires two to three years of tertiary study and is comparable to two to 
three yea rs of universit y study in the United States . According to EDGE. therefore. the 
Beneficiary's three-year bachelor of commerce from the is comparable to 
three years of university study in the United States. 3 The EDGE credential advice is consistent with 
the initial evaluation the Petitioner submitted from 
Of the two AILA documents cited by the Petitioner on appeal. the first is a reprint of a 1995 
memorandum of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service which, according to the 
Petitioner, states that credential evaluations submitted by professional credential evaluation serv ices 
should not be challenged unless the hona fides of the evaluator is questioned. As discuss ed above. 
however , case law is clear that USCIS is not bound by the findings of any credential evaluation 
which we find questionable , and the evaluations submitted by the Petitioner are both que stionable 
and conflicting. The second document is the AILA Liaison Committee Meeting notes of April 12. 
2007. which recorded questions and answers about Indian degrees and equivalency evaluations. but 
made no finding regarding the U.S. equivalency of a thre e-year Indian degree. In any event. USC IS 
is not bound in its decision-making by internal memoranda or meeting notes . See Loa-/Jen ·em \'. 
Trominski, 231 F.3d 984. 989 (5th Cir. 2000) (An agency's internal guidelines ··neither confer upon 
[plaintiffs] substantive rights nor provide procedures upon which they may rely.") For the reasons 
discussed above, the AILA documents have no binding effect on USCIS in our adjudication of this 
petition. 
As for all of the material s submitted in support of the and evaluations. the Petitioner 
has not established that any single document obligates U.S. entities like USCIS to accept a 
three-year degree from India as equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. For example. the particular 
document cited by the Petitioner in response to the RFE - the .. Recommendation on the Recognition 
of Studies and Qualifications" adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations 
EducationaL Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1993 - is by its very title is a 
··recommendation '' rather than a binding commitment. Nowhere does it suggest that a thre e-year 
degree must be deemed equivalent to a four-year degree for purposes of qualifying for inclu sion in a 
class of individuals defined by statute and regulation as eligible for immigration benefits. Moreover. 
the Petitioner has provided no evidence that the instrument was signed by the United States or that it 
is a self-executing international agreement. 
>See http://edge.aacrao.org/country/ credential/bachelor-of-art-ba-bachelor-of-comr (last visited November 30, 20 17). 
5 
.
Matter (~lM-S-. Inc. 
On appeal , the Petitioner also submits a letter from USCIS Chief James McCament to U.S. 
Representative Joseph Crowley in 2014 which stated that USCIS considers all opinions rendered by 
educational credentials evaluators. that USClS may refer to other credible resources regarding the 
U.S. equivalency of foreign educational credentials. such as EDGE, and that none of these materials 
is binding on USCIS. As discussed in the letter, USCIS considers equivalency evaluations of 
foreign academic credentials as advisory opinions in adjudication process. However. where an 
evaluation is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, USCIS is not 
required to accept it or may give it less weight. See Matter of' Caron International. 19 l&N Dec. at 
791; Matter (~(Sea. Inc .. 19 I&N Dec. at 817. 
Based on the foregoing analysis of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary has a foreign degree that is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. This 
conclusion takes into account the equivalency evaluations submitted in this proceeding. the 
credential advice from EDGE. and the other materials submitted in the adjudicatory process. Since 
the Beneficiary does not have a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree, she does not 
meet the minimum educational requirement of the labor cet1ification. Accordingly, the petition 
cannot be approved. 4 
B. Professional Classification 
As previously stated, a petition requesting professional classification ''must be accompanied by 
evidence that the beneficiary holds a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree.'' 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C). As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary has such a degree. Therefore, she does not qualify for classification as a 
professional. 
C. Experience Requirements of the Labor Certification 
Although not addressed by the Director, we also find that the evidence submitted is insufticicnt to 
establish that the Beneficiary has the experience required by the labor certification. The labor 
certification in this case specifies that 60 months of experience was required in the job offered or as 
an accounts manager or accountant. 
Section K of the labor cet1ification states that the Beneficiary began working for the Petitioner as an 
accounts manager in October 2008 and was previously employed by m 
~ In reviewing the Beneficiary's educational documents, we note some anomalies in the transcripts. For example. each 
year's transcript has a different format. The letterhead of each transcript varies. with the institution identified on the first 
year transcript as on the second year transcript as 
and on the third year transcript simply as 
The Beneticiary's seat number also varies from year to year. In the first year it was identified as 4439: in the 
second year it appears to have been 7360 (although the number is not actually identified as a seat number): and in the 
third year it was identitied as 12899. In any future proceedings these anomalies should be explained by the Beneficiary. 
.
Matter of M-S-. Inc. 
India, as an accounts manager from May 1996 to January 2002 . As described in the labor 
certification, the Beneficiary's job duties with included being responsible for all the 
incoming and outgoing shipments, maintaining daily ledger and cash flow, accounts receivable and 
payable. payrolls and stock register, as well as preparing financial statements and complying vvith 
local sales tax laws. In order to establish that the Beneficiary has the claimed experience. the 
Petitioner must submit "letters from trainers or employers giving the name , address, and title of the 
trainer or employer, and a description of the training received or the experience of the alien ... 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A) 
The Petitioner submitted letters from two companies in India, claiming to have 
employed the Beneficiary, including ( 1) which certified that it employed the 
Beneficiary as a computer programmer from April 1994 to June 1998. and (2) 
which certified that it employed the Beneficiary in a computer-oriented position (the job title was not 
identified) from November 1998 to November 2002. 
Neither of the employment verification letters submitted with the petition was hom 
the employer listed on the labor certification. The information in the letters contradicts the 
information provided in the labor certification with respect to the identity of the emp1oyer(s) in 
the time frame(s) of the employment in and the job duties performed in 
It is incumbent upon a petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice without 
competent evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See Maffer (~( Ho. 19 T&N Dec. 582, 591-92 
(BIA 1988). The Petitioner has not submitted documentary objective evidence to establish the 
Beneficiary's true employment history. 
Moreover, the fact that no employment with or was claimed in 
the labor certification lessens the credibility of the letters from these two companies. which were 
submitted with the petition. 5iee 1'ttatter o(Leung, 16 I&N Dec. 2530 (BIA 1976 ). We also note that 
both of the letters appear to have inconsistent fonts, casting further doubt on their reliability. We 
conclude, therefore. that the Petitioner has not established any qualifying experience tor the 
Beneficiary based on the letters from and 
Further , as there is no evidence of the Beneficiary's employment by from 1996 to 
2002, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has the experience claimed on the labor 
certification. Therefore. the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary has 60 months of 
qualifying employment, as required by the labor certification. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Beneficiary does not meet the minimum educational requirements of the labor certification and for 
classification as a professional. Furthennore, the Beneficiary does not have the experience required by 
the terms of the labor certification. 
..., 
Matter of M-S-. Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-S'-. Inc., 10# 917637 (AAO Feb. 12. 20 18)