dismissed EB-3 Case: Business Technology

(b)(6)
MATTER OF 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of business technology services, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
senior sourcing lead- processing management and information technology. It requests classification 
of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference immigrant category. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). 
This category allows aU .S. business to sponsor a foreign national with at least 2 years of training or 
experience for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the record 
did not establish the Beneficiary's possession of the educational requirements of the offered position. 
The matter is now before us. on appeal. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets the 
educational requirements of the offered position because the Petitioner drafted the requirements with 
the Beneficiary in mind. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
A. Employment-Based Immigration Process 
Employment-based immigration is generally a three-step process. First, an employer must obtain an 
approved ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor 
certification) from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). Next, U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services (USCIS) must approve 
an immigrant visa petition. See section 204 of the Act. Finally, a foreign national must 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. 
By approving the accompanying labor certification in this case, the DOL certified that there are 
insufficient U.S. workers who are 
able, willing, qualified, and available for the offered position of 
senior sourcing lead. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I) of the Act. The DOL also certified that the 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
employment of a foreign national in the position will not adversely atiect the wages and working 
conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(II). 
In visa petition proceedings, USCIS must determine whether the Beneficiary meets the requirements 
of the offered position certified by the DOL. See, e.g. Tongatapu Woodcraft Haw., Ltd. v Feldman, 
736 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that the immigration service "makes its own 
determination of the alien's entitlement to [the requested] preference status"). 
B. The Beneficiary's Possession of the Educational Requirements 
In order to be eligible for the requested classification, a petitioner must establish a beneficiary's 
possession of all the' education, training, and experience specified on an accompanying labor 
certification by a petition's priority date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); see also Matter of Wing's Tea 
House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971 ). 
Here, the priority date is August 19, 2014. This is the date that the DOL accepted the accompanying 
labor certification application for processing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d) (explaining how to determine 
a petition's priority date). The accompanying labor certification states the minimum educational 
requirements of the offered position of senior sourcing lead as a U.S. master's degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree in business administration or management. The labor certification also states that 
the offered position requires at least 36 months of experience in application or software 
development, infrastructure management, or spend management solutions or services.' 
In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, we must examine the job offer portion of an 
accompanying labor certification to determine the minimum requirements of an offered position. 
We may neither ignore a term of the labor certification, nor impose additional requirements. See 
K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon. 699 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1983); Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 
1008, 1012-13 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Stewart lf?fra-Red Commissary of Mass., Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 
1, 3 (1st Cir. 1981). 
The Beneficiary attested on the accompanying labor certification to his completion of a master's 
degree in management from the in India 
in 2003. The record contains a copy of a post-graduate diploma in business management from the 
institute. The diploma and accompanying marks sheets indicate the Beneficiary's receipt of the 
diploma after 2 years of study at the institute and passage of a May 2003 examination. The record 
also contains a copy of a bachelor of science diploma from the in India. The 
diploma and the accompanying marks sheets indicate the Beneficiary's completion of the degree 
after 3 years of study at the university and passage of an examination in 2000. 
1 
Part H.l4 of the labor certification states additional requirements of the offered position that are not at issue. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
The Petitioner submitted an expert evaluation of the Beneficiary's foreign educational credentials, 
which states that the Beneficiary's 3-year bachelor of science degree equates to 3 years of study at a 
U.S. university. The evaluation further concludes that his 2-year post-graduate diploma equates to a 
U.S. master's degree in management. If an expert opinion conflicts with evidence of record or "is in 
any way questionable," we may reject it or afford it less evidentiary weight. Matter of Caron Int 'l. 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988); see also Matter (?f D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.l3 
(BIA 2011) (noting that expert testimony may be given different evidentiary weight depending on 
the qualifications of the expert and the relevance, reliability, and probative value of the testimony). 
The evaluation in the case cites the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), an online 
tool that federal courts have found to be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of foreign educational 
equivalencies. See, e.g., Viraj, LLC v. U.S Att'y Gen., 578 Fed. Appx. 9Q7, 910 (lith Cir. 2014) 
(holding that USCIS may discount letters and evaluations submitted by a petitioner if they dit1er 
from reports in EDGE, which is "a respected source of information"). 2 EDGE concludes that a 
3-year bachelor of science degree from India equates to 3 years of study at a U.S. university and that 
a post-graduate diploma following a 3-year bachelor's degree in India compares to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree, rather than to a U.S. master's degree. 
Therefore, although the evaluation agrees with EDGE concerning the Beneficiary's bachelor's 
degree, it reaches a different conclusion regarding the post-graduate diploma. Noting EDGE's 
contrary conclusion, the evaluation states that the evaluator's advice may not always agree with 
EDGE because: 
EDGE was not designed to review institutional recognition or program availability 
and accreditation; to authenticate or verify foreign documents; to speak to issues of 
curriculum complexity; or to review the content of particular degree programs offered 
at specific foreign universities in comparison with similar degree programs offered in 
the United States. 
Although the evaluation states potential reasons why its conclusion may dit1er from EDGE's, it 
evaluation does not specify why its conclusion differed from EDGE's in this particular case. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted additional 
documentation, including another evaluation from the expert. The second evaluation consists of a 
course-by-course review of the Beneficiary's undergraduate and graduate studies in India. The 
second evaluation states the Beneficiary's completion of 173 semester credits of university-level 
coursework in India, including 34 graduate-level credits. Because accredited U.S. universities 
2 
EDGE was created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO). AACRAO is "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more than II ,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 around the world." AACRAO, About Us, at http://www.aacrao.org/About-AACRAO.aspx (last 
visited Feb. 22, 20 17). 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
require respective minimums of 120 and 30 semester credits for baccalaureate and master's degrees, 
the evaluation concludes that the Beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree. 
Thus, the evaluation appears to disagree with EDGE's conclusion because the amount of university 
credits that the Beneficiary purportedly earned in India exceeds U.S. master degree requirements. 
However, the second evaluation does not explain how it determined the amount of credits to award 
to the courses completed by the Beneficiary in India. The evaluation states that the evaluator 
reviewed copies of the Beneficiary's diplomas and marks sheets. But the diplomas and marks sheets 
do not state amounts of course credits or time spent in class. Without an explanation of its 
methodology for determining university credits, the second evaluation does not reliably assess the 
Beneficiary's foreign educational credentials. The second evaluation also states its review of the 
curricula of 1-year master of business administration (MBA) programs in the United States. The 
Petitioner submitted copies of online printouts from the websites of U.S. universities offering such 
accelerated M,BA programs. But, without reliable information regarding the amount of university 
credits earned by the Beneficiary in India, the record does not establish that his degree satisfied 
similar requirements of these 1-year U.S. MBA programs. The record therefore does not establish 
the Beneficiary's possession of the educational requirements for the otiered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it drafted the educational requirements on the accompanying 
labor certification with the Beneficiary in mind. The Petitioner therefore asserts that it intended a 
foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree to include the Beneficiary's foreign educational 
credentials. Citing SnapNames.com, Inc. v. Cherto.ff, No. CV 06-65-MO, 2006 WL 3491005, *9 
(D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006), the Petitioner asserts that we must defer to its interpretation of the 
educational requirements on the labor certification. 
However, the Petitioner's emphasis on this case is misplaced. In SnapNames.com, a labor 
certification accompanying a skilled worker petition stated educational requirements of 4 years of 
college and a "B.S. or foreign equivalent." SnapNames.com, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1. The 
petitioner submitted several expert evaluations, all concluding that a combination of the 
beneficiary's foreign educational credentials equated to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Jd. USCIS 
denied the petition, finding that the beneficiary lacked a single, 4-year, foreign equivalent degree as 
the agency interpreted the labor certification to require. ld. at *2. The court in SnapNames.com, 
however, found that the plain language of! the labor certification was ambiguous regarding the 
position's need for a single degree. Jd. at *8. Because neither statutes nor regulations require a 
skilled worker to possess a degree, the court found that users lacked authority to define the 
educational requirements on the labor certification. Jd. at *6. Instead, the court required USCIS to 
consider evidence of record of the petitioner's intention to accept any combination of foreign 
academic credentials evaluated by a reputable expert to equate to a U.S. bachelor's degree: Jd. at *8. 
The U.S. district court decision in SnapNames.com does not bind us in this matter.. See Matter ofK­
S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 718 (BIA 1993) (finding that, even within the same district, U.S. district court 
decisions are not precedential). Moreover, Snap Names. com is distinguishable from this case. In 
SnapNames.com, the court found the requirement of a "B.S. or equivalent" on the accompanying 
labor certification to be ambiguous regarding the position's need for a single degree. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
SnapNames.com, at *8. In this case, the accompanying labor certification unambiguously states that 
the offered position requires a U.S. master's degree or 
a foreign equivalent degree. 
Part H.4 of the ETA Form 9089 states that the offered position requires a "Master's" degree, rather 
than a "Bachelor's" degree or some "Other" educational credential. Part H.8 of the form also states 
that "No" alternate combination of education and experience is acceptable. The plain language of 
the labor certification therefore indicates that the ofiered position requires a U.S. master's degree or 
a foreign equivalent degree. 
Further, as the court in SnapNames.com recognized, USCIS "has an independent role in determining 
whether the alien meets the labor certification requirements." SnapNames.com, at *7. The court 
stated: 
where the plain language of those requirements does not support the petitioner's 
asserted intent, the agency does not err in applying the requirements as written. In 
fact, the agency is obligated to "examine the certified job ofier exactly as it is 
completed by the prospective employer." 
Id. (quoting Rosedale & Linden Park Co. v. Smith, 595 F. Supp. 829, 833 ·(D.D.C. 1984) (emphasis 
added). 
In addition, as the court in SnapNames.com indicated, interpreting the educational requirements of 
the labor certification based on the Beneficiary's background could undermine the DOL's 
certification that his employment will not "adversely afiect" U.S. workers. Id. at *8. Without 
reliable evidence ofthe Beneficiary's possession of the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree, 
acceptance of his foreign educational credentials would violate DOL regulations. The Petitioner 
would require domestic applicants to possess U.S. master's degrees, but would accept a lesser 
foreign equivalency from the Beneficiary. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(3) (barring an employer from 
requiring U.S. applicants to possess qualifications beyond those possessed by the foreign national at 
the time of hire). The Petitioner's interpretation of the educational requirements is therefore 
impermissible. 
The Petitioner also asserts that we impose an additional educational requirement on the offered 
position that is unstated on the accompanying labor certification. The Petitioner's appeal brief 
states: 
Nowhere in the job-offer portion of the Petitioner's labor certification is there any 
requirement that states that the foreign-degree equivalent must be evaluated pursuant 
to the EDGE database. This "requirement" appears to have been added by the 
Service as a result of its internal policies. 
(emphasis in original). 
c 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
The Petitioner, however, misunderstands the basis of the dismissal. In visa petition proceedings , 
unless expressly stated otherwise on an accompanying labor certification , evaluations of foreign 
educational credentials need not necessarily agree with EDGE. But, as previously indicated, where 
evaluations of record reach different concl~sions or contain inconsistencies , we may reject them or 
afford them less evidentiary weight. See, e.g., Matter of Sea. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 
(Comm 'r 1988) (stating that "[ w]here an evaluation is not in accord with previous equivalencies or 
is in any way questionable , it may be discounted or given Jess weight"); see also Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record by 
independent, objective evidence). Here, the evaluations submitted by the Petitioner cite EDGE, 
which 
contradicts their conclusions. The evaluations appear to disagree with EDGE based on the 
amount of university credits earned by the Beneficiary in India, but the evaluations do not explain 
how they determined his amount of university credits. Thus, the evaluations do not sufficiently 
resolve the contradiction of record. 
For the foregoing reasons , the record does not establish the Beneficiary ' s possession of a U.S. 
master ' s degree or foreign degree equivalent 
required for the offered position. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The record does not establish the Beneficiary's possession of the educational credentials required for 
the offered position , as specified on the accompanying labor certification. We will therefore affirm 
the Director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
In visa petition proceedings , a petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for a requested 
benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the Petitioner did not meet that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Matter o.i' ID# 132744 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017)