dismissed EB-3 Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 08397878 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for a Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DA TE: MAY. 1, 2020 
The Petitioner, an engineering and capital equipment company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an 
accountant. It requests skilled worker classification for the Beneficiary under the third preference 
immigrant category . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S .C. 
§ l 153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based "EB-3" immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer 
to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that requires at 
least two years of training or experience . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had the requisite experience to 
meet the terms of the labor certification and to qualify for skilled worker classification. The Director 
also determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the job offered is a bona fide accountant 
position or that it was open to U.S. workers. The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider, which the Director dismissed. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly consider the evidence it submitted. 
The Petitioner claims that its documentation establishes that the Beneficiary has the requisite 
experience to meet the terms of the labor certification and qualify for skilled worker classification, 
and that the record establishes the bona fides of the job offer for an accountant position within the 
Petitioner's organization. 
In visa petition proceedings it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner has not established the bona fides of the accountant position, but 
dismiss the appeal on the ground that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has the 
requisite experience to meet the terms of the labor certification and to qualify for skilled worker 
classification. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process . First, an employer obtains an 
approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l l 82(a)(5)(A)(i). By approving the labor certification, the DOL certifies that 
there are insufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available for the offered 
position and that employing a foreign national in the position will not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II) of the 
Act. Second, the employer files an immigrant visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, ifUSCIS approves the petition, 
the foreign national may apply for an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, adjustment of status in the 
United States. See section 245 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates that the Petitioner was established in 2012 as a subsidiary of the German company 
I I. The record also indicates that the Beneficiary began working 
for I I in a position called "marketing account manager" in 2007, and was transferred to 
the Petitioner to work in the position of "office manager" following the approval of her nonimmigrant 
visa in 2013. The instant petition for an immigrant visa was filed in February 2019. 
A. Bona Fides of the Proffered Position 
A petitioner must establish its intent to employ the beneficiary in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the labor certification. See Matter of Izdebska, 12 I&N Dec. 54 (Reg'l Comm'r 1966). 
The terms and conditions of the job opportunity are set forth in section Hof the labor certification. 
In this case the labor certification states at section H.3 that the job title of the proffered position is 
accountant, and describes the duties of the position as follows in section H.11: 
Assist in analyzing financial information for the company, including preparing 
financial forecasts and budgets, weekly liquidity planning and coordination with 
headquarters, releasing invoices and monitoring A/P and A/E reports, reconciliation of 
supplier and customer accounts (national and international); 
Assist in preparing and analyzing book-keeping processes, including HBI, HBII, US­
Gap, Transfer Pricing and Percentage of Completion (POC); 
Setting up accounting programs using accounting software ( eEvolution with modules 
order, purchase, KuLiMi, Article and Easy Document Management Software); 
Creating new internal accounting corporate policy and maintaining existing policies 
with closeouts and reports, reconciliation of bank accounts, depreciation and prepaid 
expenses calculations, bank account reconciliations, third party audits, sales tax filings; 
and managing and processing all day to day accounting processes. 
The labor certification indicates in section H.4 that there is no educational requirement for the position, 
and in section H. l O that 24 months of experience is required in the job offered or "any related 
occupation." Section H.14 of the labor certification states that there are specific experience and skills 
requirements consisting of: 
2 years of accounting experience dealing with international customers and suppliers, 
including using accounting software eEvolution with modules order, purchase, 
2 
KuLiMi, Article and Easy Document Management Software. Stated experience to 
include HBI, HBII, US-Gap, Transfer Pricing and Percentage of Completion (POC). 
In his denial decision the Director identified three factors that raised questions about whether the 
proffered position was a bona fide offer of employment as an accountant. As explained by the 
Director, the Beneficiary's prior nonimmigrant proceedings did not reveal that she had experience as 
an accountant; the Beneficiary already worked for the Petitioner as an office manager and it did not 
appear that her new position would involve full-time accountant duties; and the duties of the proffered 
position as described on the labor certification fell outside the normal standards for an accountant 
according to the Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) published by the DOL's Bureau of Labor 
Statistics. The Director noted that the user interface of the eEvolution software was in German and 
implied that the indication in section H.13 of the labor certification that no foreign language was 
required for the proffered position was inconsistent with actual job requirements. As for the specific 
software requirements identified in section H.14 of the labor certification, the Director stated that the 
Petitioner did not establish that ordering and purchasing were normal functions of accounting, and 
neither the OOH nor any other publicly available resource suggested that invoicing, purchasing, or 
ordering are standard functions of an accountant. The Director cited a letter from the Petitioner's 
president stating that knowledge of the particular software identified in the labor certification was 
necessary because no in-house expertise was available for on-the-job training. The Director concluded 
that the labor certification requirements created a narrow field of eligible candidates with experience 
in accounting, but also in specific German software that was generally not used by accountants, that a 
reasonable explanation for these requirements was not provided, and that the Petitioner therefore did 
not establish that the proffered position is a bona fide job opportunity for U.S. workers. As additional 
grounds for doubting the bonafides of the proffered position, the Director noted that the Petitioner is 
a small business with only five employees at the time the instant petition was filed and had not 
demonstrated its need for a full-time accountant or explained who would handle office manager 
responsibilities if the Beneficiary were shifted out of that position. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that previously submitted documentation confirms that the proffered 
position is a bona fide job offer for an accountant, consistent with the duties described in the labor 
certification. One of those documents was a letter from the Petitioner's president asserting that a full­
time accountant is needed because of the growing volume and complexity of the Petitioner's business, 
and reiterating that the Beneficiary would perform the job duties described in the labor certification. 
When determining whether a beneficiary is eligible for a preference immigrant visa, USCIS may not 
ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional requirements. See Madany v. 
Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1015 (D.C. Cir. 1983). USCIS must examine "the language of the labor 
certification job requirements" in order to determine what the job requires. Id. The only rational 
manner by which USCIS can be expected to interpret the meaning of terms used to describe the 
requirements of a job in a labor certification is to examine the certified job offer exactly as it is 
completed by the prospective employer. See Rosedale Linden Park Company v. Smith, 595 F. Supp. 
829, 833 (D.D.C. 1984) ( emphasis added). USCIS's interpretation of the job's requirements, as stated 
on the labor certification, must involve reading and applying the plain language of the alien 
employment certification application form. See id. at 834. USCIS may not ignore a term of the labor 
3 
certification, nor may 1t impose additional requirements. See Matter of Silver Dragon Chinese 
Restaurant, 19 I&N Dec. 401,406 (Comm'r 1986). 
In this case, the Petitioner submitted documentation showing that DOL audited the labor certification 
application prior to certifying that there were no qualified U.S. workers for the position. While the 
position title of accountant appears more advanced than the job duties, DOL reviewed the recruitment 
materials and determined that there were not any qualified workers for the accountant position as 
advertised, and certified the position. Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's determination that the 
position is not bona.fide. 
B. Beneficiary's Qualifications 
The remaining question on appeal is whether the Beneficiary has the requisite qualifications for the 
proffered position and the requested visa classification. The Petitioner requests classification of the 
Beneficiary as a skilled worker. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B) states that to qualify for 
skilled worker classification: 
. . . the petition must be accompanied by evidence that the [beneficiary] meets the 
educational, training or experience, and any other requirements of the individual labor 
certification .... The minimum requirements for this classification are at least two 
years of training or experience. 
To be eligible for skilled worker classification, therefore, the Beneficiary must meet all specific 
requirements of the labor certification and have at least two years ofrelevant experience (or training). 
All requirements must be met by the petition's priority date, 1 which in this case is June 1, 2018. See 
Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
In this case section H of the labor certification (Job Opportunity Information) specifies the following 
with respect to the requirements for the job of accountant: 
4. 
5. 
6. 
6-A. 
8. 
10. 
10-A. 
10-B. 
13. 
Education: Minimum level required: 
Is training required for the job? 
Is experience in the job offered required? 
How long? 
Is an alternate combination of education 
and experience acceptable? 
Is experience in an alternate occupation acceptable? 
How long? 
Acceptable alternative occupation: 
Is knowledge of a foreign language required? 
14. Specific skills or other requirements: 
None 
No 
Yes 
24 months 
No 
Yes 
24 months 
Any related occupation 
No 
1 The priority date of a petition is the date the underlying labor certification is filed with the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( d). 
4 
2 years of accounting experience dealing with international customers and 
suppliers, including using accounting software eEvolution with modules order, 
purchase, KuLiMi, Article and Easy Document Management Software. Stated 
experience to include HBI, HBII, US-Gap, Transfer Pricing and Percentage of 
Completion (POC) 
In a letter accompanying the petition the Petitioner's president asserted that the Beneficiary rained I 
more than two years of qualifying experience in her work as a marketing account manager for 
I )in Germany from September 2007 to November 2013. The labor certification describes the 
Beneficiary's job duties withl I as follows: 
Responsible for intercompany operations for international suppliers and customers, 
including bookkeeping, accounting, and purchasing. Manage client billing and prepare 
invoices to clients in multiple formats across different platforms (HBI, HBII, US-Gap, 
Transfer Pricing and Percentage of Completion (POC)). Manage accounts payable: 
receive and verify vendor invoices, pay invoices timely and accurately, and maintain 
all accounts payable records. Use accounting software ( eEvolution with modules order, 
purchase, KuLiMi, Article and Easy Document Management Software) to prepare and 
analyze bookkeeping processes. Review contracts, maintain all company accounts 
(business licenses, insurance, software, utilities, etc.) and manage company 
bookkeeping and financial records. Coordinate and manage the maintenance, 
inventory, purchasing, and distribution of all company equipment and supplies. 
As evidence of this experience a letter from I J s head of human resources was also 
submitted with the petition. This letter described the Beneficiary's job duties in the years 2007-2013 
in wording taken almost verbatim from the job description in the labor certification. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), however, the Director advised the Petitioner that in the Beneficiary's 
prior nonimmigrant visa proceeding no accounting experience was claimed in her marketing specialist 
job with the Petitioner's German parent. The Director requested additional evidence to resolve this 
discrepancy. In its response to the RFE the Petitioner submitted another letter from its president 
asserting that the Beneficiary's current office manager position with the Petitioner and her prior 
marketing position with the parent company, while dissimilar to the proffered position, contained 
certain accounting duties. The Petitioner also submitted copies of old letters from the Akademie 
Handel (Academy of Trade) in Germany asserting that the Beneficiary was a lecturer and author of 
business-related subjects, including accounting, during the years 1991-2008. However, no evidence 
was submitted to resolve the discrepancy discussed in the RFE between the Petitioner's claim in the 
,i:J.l'..1'1 ~·.11 1-----vroceeding that the Beneficiary gained accounting experience in her position with I I 
---~in~t=h ....... e years 2007-2013 and the absence of any such claim of accounting experience with 
.__ ____ ___. in the Beneficiary's prior proceeding to obtain a nonimmigrant visa. The failure to 
resolve this discrepancy was a primary reason for the Director's conclusion that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary had at least two years of experience in accounting or a related job. 
5 
On appeal the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's job duties withl lwere described 
on her nonimmigrant visa application in basic terms since the State Department's Form DS-160, unlike 
the labor certification application and employment-based immigrant petition of the current proceeding, 
did not require details about specific skills. This explanation is unpersuasive, however, because it 
does not account for the fact that the job duties described on the nonimmigrant visa application in 
2013 focused exclusively on marketing-related activities, consistent with the Beneficiary's job title of 
marketing account manager, and did not mention any accounting-related activities. The Petitioner 
submits another letter froml lwhich reiterates the substance of its initial letter that 
accompanied the petition, but likewise fails to explain why the Beneficiary's job duties from 2007 to 
2013 were explained so differently in the Beneficiary's nonimmigrant visa application in 2013 than 
they are in the current immigrant visa proceeding. Thus, on appeal the Petitioner has still failed to 
provide a convincing explanation for the fundamentally different way the Beneficiary's duties at I I I lwere described in the nonimmigrant visa application compared to the current immigrant visa 
petition. 
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 Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's evidence also reflects on the reliability of the petitioner's 
remaining evidence. See id. 
In this case the Petitioner has not resolved the inconsistent descriptions of the Beneficiary's job duties 
with I I between the Beneficiary's nonimmigrant visa application with the Department of 
State, which claims they were all marketing related, consistent with her job title of marketing accounts 
manager, and the current employment-based immigrant petition in which the Petitioner claims the 
Beneficiary had primarily accounting-related duties, notwithstanding her job title of marketing 
accounts manager. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary rined any 
qualifying experience as an accountant or in an accountant-related job withl during the 
years 2007-2013. 
The Petitioner resubmits copies of the letters from the Akademie Handel (Academy of Trade) in 
Germany asserting that the Beneficiary was a lecturer and author of business-related subjects, 
including accounting, during the years 1991-2008, but does not explain how these activities translate 
into qualifying experience for the proffered position. 
Finally, while the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary performs some accounting duties in her current 
position of office manager, the Petitioner acknowledges that the office manager position, consistent 
with its indication at section J.21 on the labor certification, is not substantially comparable to the 
proffered position of accountant. According to the Petitioner about 25% of the Beneficiary's current 
duties as office manager are accounting duties that overlap with the duties of the proffered position. 
Thus, the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary meets the experience requirement of the 
proffered position based on her current job alone. 
G 
In accord with the foregoing analysis we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary gained at least two years of qualifying experience by the priority date of June 1, 2018. 
Therefore, the Beneficiary does not have the requisite experience to meet the terms of the labor 
certification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We withdraw the Director's determination that the proffered position is not a bona fide job offer for 
an accountant. However, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary had at least two years 
of qualifying experience for the position by the priority date, as required by the labor certification. 
Therefore, the Beneficiary does not meet the experience requirement of the labor certification and 
does not qualify for classification as a skilled worker. The appeal will be dismissed for the above 
stated reasons, with each considered an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7