dismissed EB-3 Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6344091 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Professional 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 29,2021 
Before going out of business, the Petitioner, a shoe store operator, sought to employ the Beneficiary 
as a network administrator. The company requested his classification under the third-preference, 
immigrant visa category for professionals. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). 
After first granting the filing, the Directorofthe Texas Service Centerrevoked the petition's approval. 
The Beneficiary appealed, and we withdrew the Director's decision . We remanded the matter for a 
determination of the Beneficiary's eligibility to appeal under Matter ofV-S-G-Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-06 (AAO Nov. 11, 2017). 1 Matter ofS-T-USAB-R-, Inc. , ID# 329356 (AAO Jan. 31, 2018). 
On remand, the Director found the Beneficiary eligible to participate in the proceedings, informed him 
of the proposed revocation grounds, and again revoked the petition's approval. The Director 
concluded that the Beneficiary didn't establish his possession of the minimum educational 
requirements of the offered position and the requested immigrant visa category. 
The matter is before us again on the Beneficiary's appeal. 2 As the appellant in revocation proceedings, 
the Beneficiary bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance 
of evidence. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,589 (BIA 1988)(discussingthe burden of proof); 
see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010) (discussing the standard of proof). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION 
Immigration as a professional generally follows a three-step process. First, a prospective employer 
must apply to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) for certification that: (1) there are insufficient U.S. 
workers able, willing, qualified, and available for an offered position; and (2) the employment of a 
1 V-S-G-requires U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to treat beneficiaries in revocation proceeding; as 
affected parties if they qualify to "port" to new jobs under section 204G) of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1154G), and properly 
requested to do so. MatterofV-S-G-, Adopted Decision20 l 7-06at* 14. 
2 Contrary to ourpriorappellate order, the Director didn't certify his mostrecent adverse decision to us. Also, while this 
appeal was pending, the Director dismissed the Beneficiary's motions to reopen and reconsider the revocation decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(2), (3). The motion decisions are not before us on review. 
noncitizen in the position would not harm wages and working conditions of U.S. workers with similar 
jobs. See section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.e. § 1182(a)(5). 
Second, an employer must submit an approved labor ce1iification with an immigrant visa petition to 
users. See section 204 of the Act. Among other things, users detennines whether a noncitizen 
beneficiary meets the requirements of a certified position and a requested immigrant visa category. 
8 e.F.R. § 204.5(1). 
Finally, if users approves a petition, a designated noncitizen may apply for an immigrant visa abroad 
or, if eligible, "adjustment ofstatus"in the United States. See section245 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
"[ A ]t any time" before a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence, however, users may revoke 
a petition's approval for "good and sufficient cause." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.e. § 1155. If 
supported by a record, the erroneous nature of a petition's approval justifies its revocation. Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,590 (BIA 1988). 
users may issue a NOIR if the unexplained and unrebuttedrecord would have warranted a petition's 
denial. Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 451 (BIA 1987). The Agency properly revokes a 
petition's approval if a party's NOIR response does not rebut the stated revocation grounds. Id. at 
451-52. 
II. THE EDUeATIONALREQUIREMENTS 
To qualify as a professional, a beneficiary must hold "at least a United States baccalaureate degree or 
a foreign equivalent degree." 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(2) (defining the term "professional"). A 
beneficiary with the equivalent of a baccalaureate based solely on employment experience, or a 
combination of education and experience or of lesser educational credentials, doesn't qualify for the 
classification. See Final Rule for Employment-BasedlmmigrantPetitions, 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 
(Nov. 29, 1991) (statingthat"both the Act and its legislative history make clear that, in order to qualify 
as a professional under the third classification ... , an alien must have at least a bachelor's degree") 
( emphasis added). 
A beneficiary must also meet all DOL-certifiedjob requirements of an offered position by a petition's 
priority date. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Acting Reg'l eomm'r 1977). 3 In 
evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, users must examine the job-offer portion of an 
accompanying labor certification to determine a position's minimum requirements. users may 
neither ignore a certification term, nor impose additional requirements. See, e.g., Madany v. Smith, 
696F.2d 1008, 1015 (D.e. eir.1983)(holdingthat"DOL bearstheauthorityforsettingthecontent 
of the labor certification") ( emphasis in original). 
The accompanying labor certification states the minimum requirements of the offered position of 
network administrator as a U.S. bachelor's degree, or a foreign equivalent degree, in computer science 
3 This petition's priority date is July 5, 2006, the date DOL accepted the accompanyinglaborcertificationapplication for 
processing. Sec 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d) ( explaining how to dete1minea petition's priority date). 
2 
and two years of experience in the job offered. The labor certification states that the Petitioner will 
not accept a degree in an alternate field of study or experience in an alternate occupation. 
On the labor certification, the Beneficiary attested that, by the petition's priority date, he earned the 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer science from a Pakistani institute affiliated with a 
university in the country. The Petitioner submitted copies of the Beneficiary's diploma and transcript 
from the institute that issued his master's degree. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) (requiring a petition 
for a professional to include "an official college or university record showing the date the 
baccalaureate degree was awarded and the area of concentration of study"). The record also contains 
three independent professional evaluations of the Beneficiary's foreign educational credentials, 
concluding that his master's degree equates to a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer science. 
The Director's most recent NO IR, however, cites inf mmation from the Pakistani government that casts 
doubt on the validity of the Beneficiary's master's degree. See Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (allowing the immigration service to reject or afford lesser evidentiary 
weight to expert testimony that conflicts with other evidence or "is in any way questionable"). 4 The 
NOIR notes that an online list of recognized universities from the Higher Education Commission 
(HEC), the government body that establishes and monitors degree-granting institutions in Pakistan, 
omits the institute that issued the Beneficiary's master's degree. See HEC, "Recognised Universities," 
https://www.hec.gov.pk/english/ universities/pages/recognised.aspx (last visited Sep. 7, 2021 ). The 
NOIR also notes that the HEC's on line list of "illegal and fake" schools contained an institute of the 
same name and city as the school that issued the Beneficiary's master's degree. See HEC, 
"Illegal/Fake Universities & Campuses," https://www.hec.gov.pk/english/universities/pages/ajk/ 
illegal-dais.aspx (last visited Sep. 7, 2021 ). The online infmmation casts doubt on the institute's 
authority to issue the Beneficiary's master's degree and the diploma's authenticity. The unexplained 
and unrebutted record atthe time of the NOIR' s issuance therefore would have warranted the petition's 
denial. 
On appeal, the Beneficiarynotes that neither the Act nor Department of Homeland Security regulations 
require issuance of foreign degrees by "accredited" schools. But Congress clearly intended 
professionals to have authentic degrees validly issued by authorized institutions. See section 204(b) 
of the Act (requiring USCIS to determine "that the facts stated in the petition are true"). The NOIR's 
allegations cast doubt on the validity and authenticity of the Beneficiary's foreign degree. The 
Director therefore issued the notice for "good and sufficient cause." 
The Beneficiary, however, has rebutted the NOIR' s allegations. The record contains a July 2016 letter 
from a university administrative officer, ce1iifying the school's prior affiliation with the institute that 
issued the Beneficiary's master's degree in 1993. The letter states that, because of the institute's 
affiliation with the accredited university, the institute "did not require separate accreditation from 
HEC" to issue the Beneficiary's degree. A July 2016 letterfrom a regional deputy director of the HEC 
also states that "if an institute/college is affiliated with the University ... and operating inl I 
4 The Director's initial NOIR, which the Petitioner received and responded to, alleged that the company didn't demonstrate 
its required ability topaythe proffered wage or its intent toemploytheBeneficiaryin the offered position. Themostrecent 
NOIR, which only the Beneficia1y received, alleges that the record didn't establish his educational qualifications for the 
offered position and requested immigrant visa category, and that he and the Petitioner misrepresented his educational 
credentials in the petition and on the accompanyinglaborcertificationapplication. 
3 
province it needs to implement HEC affiliation criteria but it does not require a separate Accreditation 
from HEC." The letters constitute objective, independent evidence of the institute's authorization to 
issue the Beneficiary's master's degree. 
The Beneficiary also submitted a February 2019 letter from another university administrative officer. 
This letter states that the institute he attended changed its name after the 2004-05 academic year and 
closed about six years later. The letter states that the institute on the HEC's list of illegal/fake schools 
bears the original name of the institute that issued the Beneficiary's degree. But the letter states that 
the institute on the list didn't produce the Beneficiary's degree, as that school opened after the closing 
of the institute the Beneficiary attended. This university letter constitutes independent, objective 
evidence that HEC's list of illegal/fake institutions didn't include the institute that issued the 
Beneficiary's master's degree. 
The Director found the February 2019, university letter unreliable because the name of its signatory 
didn't appear on the school's online list of staff members. The Beneficiary, however, submits evidence 
that the online staffing list now includes the signatory. A preponderance of evidence therefore 
establishes the letter's reliability. 
The Director also found that the university's website listed the name and title of the signatory of the 
school's prior letter differently than on the document. The Directorreceived the prior letter in response 
to his first NO IR, which he issued only to the Petitioner. But the copy of the NO IR that the Beneficiary 
received didn't question the name or title of the letter's signatory. A revocation can only be grounded 
on, and an affected party need only respond to, a NOIR's factual allegations. Matter of Arias, 19 I&N 
Dec. 568,570 (BIA 1988). The Director therefore improperly based the revocation on the alleged 
inconsistencies in the university's prior letter. In any event, the Beneficiary submits evidence that, at 
the time the Director viewed the university website, the signatory held a diff erentpositionatthe school 
than indicated in the letter and that translation variations accounted for different spellings of the 
signatory's name. Thus, a preponderance of evidence demonstrates the validity of the university 
letters submitted by the Beneficiary. The record therefore establishes that, by the petition's priority 
date, the Pakistani institute validly issued the Beneficiary the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 
degree in computer science. 
Contrary to the Director's decision, the record establishes the Beneficiary's educational qualifications 
for the requested immigrant visa classification and the offered position. We will therefore withdraw 
the petition's revocation on this ground. 
III. THE EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS 
The appeal overcomes the revocation ground. But, as our notice ofintentto dismiss (NOID) the appeal 
informed the Beneficiary, the record indicates the petition's erroneous approval. 5 Specifically, the 
Beneficiary hasn't demonstrated that he gained the minimum employment experience required for the 
offered position. 
5 We may revoke a petition's approval on grounds omitted from a NOIRifwe notifythe affected party ofthegroundsand 
afford it a reasonable opportunity to respond. Patel v. Johnson, 2 F.Supp.3d 108, 127 (D. Mass.2014). 
4 
Recall that a party must demonstrate a beneficiary's possession of all DOL-certifiedjob requirements 
of an offered position by a petition's priority date. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. at 160. 
The labor certification states that, besides a bachelor's degree in computer science, the offered position 
of network administrator requires two years of experience "in the job offered." 
On the labor ce1iification, the Beneficiary attested that, by the petition's priority date of July 5, 2006, 
he gained more than 11 years of full-time, qualifying experience. He stated the following employment 
history: 
• About one year, nine months as a network administrator and programmer analyst for a U.S. 
shoe store with the same address as the Petitioner, from October 2004 to July 2006; 
• About one year, three months as a network administrator for a U.S. computer services 
company, from July 2003 to October 2004; 
• About four years, five months as a manager of information technology for a Pakistani computer 
services company, from February 1999 to June 2003; and 
• About three years, 10 months as a network administrator for the same Pakistani company, from 
April 1995 to February 1999. 
The Beneficiary's NOID response states that he doesn't rely on his claimed experience with the U.S. 
shoe store. The response, however, contains evidence of his purported employment by the U.S. 
computer services company from July 2003 to October 2004. Copies of a February 2003 employment 
agreement, a March 2003 letterfrom the company'smanagingdirectorto a U.S. consulate in Pakistan, 
and a company job description indicate the company's intent to employ the Beneficiaiy as a "network 
& systems analyst." The record also contains copies of paystubs and the Beneficiary's U.S. federal 
income tax returns for 2003 and 2004, indicating the company's employment of him from August 
2003 to September 2004. 
The employment agreement and company letter are dated before the Beneficiary's purported start date 
of employment and therefore don't confirm his work for the company during the claimed period. The 
payroll and tax records appear to document the company's full-time, employment of the Beneficiaiy 
from August 2003 to September 2004. But all the "YTD" (year to date) salary amounts on the 
Beneficiary's payroll records from May 16, 2004 through September 15, 2004, state $13,846.20. The 
records for this period show his receipt of wages but omit the wages from his YTD amounts. The 
static YTD amounts cast doubt on the Beneficiary's receipt of payments during the period and the 
authenticity of the payroll records. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a petitioner to 
resolve inconsistencies of record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies). The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience 
from July 2003 to October 2004. 
To support the Beneficiary's claimed experience abroad, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the 
managing director of the computer services company in Pakistan. The letter states the company's 
employment of the Beneficiary as a senior network administrator from April 1993 to February 1999 
and as a manager of information technology from February 1999 to January 2002. 
Because the company letter is dated in January 2002, it documents the Beneficiary's employment only 
until that date. But the start date of employment in the letter also doesn't match the date listed on the 
5 
labor certification. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a pet1t10ner to resolve 
inconsistencies of record). In addition, contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A), the letter does not 
describe the Beneficiary's experience. 
The Beneficiary contends that he began working for the Pakistani computer services company in April 
1993. He asserts that theApril 1995 staii date in the company's letter is a typographical error that was 
continued onto the labor certification application. The record, however, lacks evidence from the 
Pakistani company or the Petitioner explaining how the purported error occurred, and independent, 
objective evidence of the Beneficiary's claimed employment by the Pakistani company from April 
1993 to April 1995. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve 
inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence). 
The Beneficiary also asserts that the letter from the Pakistani company describes his experience. He 
states that an attachment to the letter contains a detailed description of his positions with the company. 
The letter's attachment, however, appears to be a copy of the Beneficiary's resume. Resumes don't 
generally demonstrate qualifying experience because corresponding beneficiaries usually prepared 
them, and they therefore usually constitute biased, unreliable evidence. Moreover, "employers" must 
describe a beneficiary's experience. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A). The record doesn't establish who 
prepared the letter's attachment. The Beneficiary's NOID response twice describes the attachment as 
'·prepared by the petitioning company" ( emphasis in original), which we assume means by the 
Petitioner. Later, however, the NOID response states that both the letter and attachment were 
"prepared by the company" ( emphasis in original), which appears to mean by the Pakistani company. 
Because the record doesn't establish the attachment's preparation by the Beneficiary's claimed, former 
employer, the attachment doesn't meet regulatory requirements and doesn't reliably demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's claimed foreign qualifying experience. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record doesn't demonstrate the Beneficiary's possession of the 
minimum experience required for the offered position. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Beneficiary has established his educational qualifications for the offered position and the 
requested immigrant visa category. But he hasn't demonstrated his possession of the minimum 
employment experience required for the position. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6