dismissed EB-3 Case: Computer Science

U.S. Departnlent of FIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. 3000 
it ina &I& to 
prevenht clw1y unw 
invasion of pwmI privacy 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 04 214 50326 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Data 3 1 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant petition for Alien. Worker as a Skilled Worker or Professional pursuant to Section 
203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(3) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER. 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 214 50326 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center, and is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a computer consulting company. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the 
United States as a programmer analyst. As required by statute, the petition is accompanied by a Form ETA 
750, Application for Alien Employment Certification, approved by the United States Department of Labor 
(DOL). As set forth in the director's February 2, 2005 denial, the director determined that the petitioner had 
not established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage beginning on the 
priority date of the visa petition. The director denied the petition accordingly. 
The record shows that the appeal is properly filed, timely and makes a specific allegation of error in law or 
fact. The procedural history in this case is documented by the record and incorporated into the decision. 
Further elaboration of the procedural history will be made only as necessary. 
Section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1 153(b)(3)(A)(i), 
provides for the granting of preference classification to qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of 
petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing skilled labor (requiring at least two years 
training or experience), not of a temporary nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United 
States. Section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii), also provides for the granting of 
preference classification to qualified immigrants who hold baccalaureate degrees and are members of the 
professions. 
The regulation 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(g)(2) states in pertinent part: 
Ability of prospective employer to pay wage. Any petition filed by or for an employment- 
based immigrant which requires an offer of employment must be accompanied by evidence 
that the prospective United States employer has the ability to pay the proffered wage. The 
petitioner must demonstrate this ability at the time the priority date is established and 
continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. Evidence of this ability 
shall be in the form of copies of annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial 
statements. 
The petitioner must demonstrate the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage beginning on the priority 
date, which is the date the Form ETA 750, Application for Alien Employment Certification, was accepted for 
processing by any office within the employment system of the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(d). The petitioner 
must also demonstrate that, on the priority date, the beneficiary had the qualifications stated on its Form ETA 
750, Application for Alien Employment Certification, as certified by the DOL and submitted with the instant 
petition. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158 (Act. Reg. Comm. 1977). 
Here, the Form ETA 750 was accepted on February 14, 2001.' The proffered wage as stated on the Form 
ETA 750 is $67,000.00 per year. The Form ETA 750 states that the position requires a bachelor's degree in 
1 
 The instant petition is for a substituted beneficiary. An 1-140 petition for a substituted beneficiary retains 
the same priority date as the original ETA 750. Memo. from Luis G. Crocetti, Associate Commissioner, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, to Regional Directors, et al., Substitution of Labor Certification 
BeneJiciaries, at 3, http://ows.doleta.gov/dmstree/fm/~96/fm~28-96a.pdf (March 7, 1996). 
EAC 04 214 50326 
Page 3 
computer science or engineering and two years of experience in the job offered or two years of experience in 
computer software developing andlor consulting. 
The AAO takes a de novo look at issues raised in the denial of this petition. See Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). The AAO considers all 
pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeaL2 On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief, the petitioner's previously submitted IRS Forms 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax 
Returns, for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, an affidavit from the petitioner's President indicating that the tax 
returns submitted on appeal are exact copies of the petitioner's tax returns filed with the IRS, the petitioner's 
payroll tax records for the first, second and fourth quarters of 2004, two memos from William R. Yates, 
Associate Director, Operations, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), regarding the issuance of 
requests for evidence, minutes from a 1993 meeting of the petitioner's Board of Directors, Certificate of 
Incorporation for the petitioner's parent company in India, Certificate of Change of Name for the petitioner's 
parent company in India, a letter dated January 15, 1994 from the Reserve Bank of India approving the 
proposal of the petitioner's parent company to establish a wholly-owned subsidiary in the United States, a 
Certificate of Authority issued by the Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey indicating that the 
petitioner is authorized to transact business in New Jersey, a Certificate of Existence issued by the Secretary 
of State of the State of Georgia indicating that the petitioner is authorized to transact business in Georgia, and 
the petitioner's stock certificates. The record does not contain any other evidence relevant to the petitioner's 
ability to pay the wage. 
The evidence in the record of proceeding shows that the petitioner is structured as a C corporation. The 
petitioner is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Akshay Software Technologies Ltd., a foreign corporation 
incorporated in India. On the petition, the petitioner claimed to have been established in 1993, to have a gross 
annual income of $8,000,000.00, and to currently employ over 100 workers. According to the tax returns in 
the record, the petitioner's fiscal year is based on a calendar year. On the Form ETA 750B, signed by the 
beneficiary on June 23, 2004, the beneficiary claimed to have worked for the petitioner as a systems analyst 
from September 2001 to the date he signed the Form ETA 750B. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's tax returns establish its ability to pay the proffered wage. 
Counsel states that the director should have issued a request for evidence (RFE) in this matter.3 Counsel also 
asserts that the petitioner employed the beneficiary in all relevant years, that it paid the beneficiary partial 
The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, which 
are incorporated into the regulations by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(a)(l). The record in the instant case 
provides no reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents newly submitted on appeal. See Matter 
of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). 
Counsel's assertion that the director should have issued an RFE in this matter is without merit, as the 
director issued an RFE to the petitioner on October 21, 2004. The regulation states that the petitioner shall 
submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the 
request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has 
been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(8) and (12). Although 
specifically and clearly requested by the director in its WE, the petitioner declined to provide IRS-certified 
copies of its corporate tax returns for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. The certified tax returns would have 
demonstrated the amount of taxable income the petitioner reported to the IRS and further reveal its ability to 
pay the proffered wage. The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry 
shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
EAC 04 214 50326 
Page 4 
wages in 2001 and that it paid the beneficiary the full proffered wage in 2002 and 2003. Counsel further 
asserts that the petitioner's other current liabilities listed at Line 18 of its IRS Form 1120, Schedule L, should 
not be considered in the calculation of the petitioner's ability to pay, as the liabilities are debts due to the 
petitioner's parent company. Counsel asserts that the etitioner has requested certified copies if its tax returns 
b) 
from the IRS and will provide them upon receipt. 
 Finally, counsel asserts that the petitioner's parent 
company and its affiliated entities employ approximately 200 employees, but that the petitioner employs 
approximately 23 employees in the United states.' 
The petitioner must establish that its job offer to the beneficiary is a realistic one. Because the filing of an 
ETA 750 labor certification application establishes a priority date for any immigrant petition later based on the 
ETA 750, the petitioner must establish that the job offer was realistic as of the priority date and that the offer 
remained realistic for each year thereafter, until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. The 
petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage is an essential element in evaluating whether a job offer is realistic. 
See Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142 (Acting Reg. Comm. 1977). See also 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(g)(2). 
In detennining the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage during a given period, CIS will first examine 
whether the petitioner employed and paid the beneficiary during that period. If the petitioner establishes by 
documentary evidence that it employed the beneficiary at a salary equal to or greater than the proffered wage, 
the evidence will be considered prima facie proof of the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. In the 
instant case, the petitioner has not established that it employed and paid the beneficiary the full proffered 
wage on the priority date or subsequently.6 
If the petitioner does not establish that it employed and paid the beneficiary an amount at least equal to the 
proffered wage during that period, CIS will next examine the net income figure reflected on the petitioner's 
The director noted in his decision that the petitioner's 2001 tax returns had been altered. The petitioner has 
not addressed this issue in its appeal. While the petitioner claims that the tax returns submitted on appeal are 
exact copies of the returns filed with the IRS, it is unlikely that the petitioner's tax returns were processed by 
the IRS as filed. The figures provided at Lines 17(d) and 18(d) of Schedule L of the petitioner's IRS Form 
1120 for 2000 do not match the figures provided at Lines 17(b) and 18(b) of Schedule L of the petitioner's 
IRS Form 1120 for 2001. The petitioner has provided no explanation for the discrepancy. Doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
5 
 In general, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(g)(2) requires annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial 
statements as evidence of a petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage. That provides further provides: "In 
a case where the prospective United States employer employs 100 or more workers, the director may accept a 
statement from a financial officer of the organization which establishes the prospective employer's ability to 
pay the proffered wage." The petitioner did not submit a statement from a financial officer regarding the 
petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage, and the petitioner submitted no other evidence to establish that 
it employs 100 or more workers. The petitioner's payroll tax records for the first, second and fourth quarters 
of 2004 establish that the petitioner employed 23 workers in 2004. 
Despite counsel's appellate assertion, the record lacks any copies of IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax 
Statements, showing wages paid to the beneficiary, and the record contains no other evidence of the wages 
paid to the beneficiary by the petitioner. The record therefore lacks evidence that the petitioner was paying 
the proffered wage during the relevant time period and lacks evidence to determine the amount of any 
increase which would be necessary to raise the beneficiary's actual wage to the proffered wage during that 
time period. The AAO therefore must evaluate the petitioner's ability to pay the entire proffered wage as of 
the priority date and continuing to the present. 
EAC 04 214 50326 
Page 5 
federal income tax return, without consideration of depreciation or other expenses. Reliance on federal 
income tax returns as a basis for determining a petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage is well 
established by judicial precedent. Elatos Restaurant Corp. v. Sava, 632 F. Supp. 1049, 1054 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) 
(citing Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1984)); see also Chi-Feng 
Chang v. Thornburgh, 7 19 F. Supp. 532 (N.D. Texas 1989); K. C. P. Food Co., Inc. v. Sava, 623 F. Supp. 1080 
(S.D.N.Y. 1985); Ubeda v. Palmer, 539 F. Supp. 647 (N.D. 111. 1982), afd, 703 F.2d 571 (7th Cir. 1983). 
For a C corporation, CIS considers net income to be the figure shown on Line 28 of the Form 1120, U.S. 
Corporation Income Tax Return. The record before the director closed on January 11, 2005 with the receipt 
by the director of the petitioner's subinissions in response to the director's request for evidence. As of that 
date, the petitioner's 2004 federal income tax return was not yet due. Therefore, the petitioner's income tax 
return for 2003 is the most recent return available. The petitioner's tax returns demonstrate its net income for 
2001,2002 and 2003, as shown in the table below. 
In 2001, the Form 1 120 stated net income of $34,945.00. 
In 2002, the Form 1120 stated net income of -$748,557.00. 
In 2003, the Form 1 120 stated net income of $49,619.00. 
Therefore, for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003, the petitioner did not have sufficient net income to pay the 
proffered wage of $67,000.00. 
If the net income the petitioner demonstrates it had available during that period, if any, added to the wages 
paid to the beneficiary during the period, if any, do not equal the amount of the proffered wage or more, CIS 
will review the petitioner's assets. Net current assets are the difference between the petitioner's current assets 
and current liabi~ities.~ A corporation's year-end current assets are shown on Schedule L, lines 1 through 6 
and include cash-on-hand. Its year-end current liabilities are shown on lines 16 through 18.' If the total of a 
corporation's end-of-year net current assets and the wages paid to the beneficiary (if any) are equal to or 
greater than the proffered wage, the petitioner is expected to be able to pay the proffered wage using those net 
current assets. The petitioner's tax returns demonstrate its end-of-year net current assets for 2001, 2002 and 
2003, as shown in the table below. 
In 2001, the Form 1 120 stated net current assets of -$1,623,890.00. 
In 2002, the Form 1120 stated net current assets of -$1,402,443.00. 
* 
 In 2003, the Form 1120 stated net current assets of $128,764.00. 
According to Barron's Dictionary ofAccounting Terms 117 (3rd ed. 2000), "current assets" consist of items 
having (in most cases) a life of one year or less, such as cash, marketable securities, inventory and prepaid 
expenses. "Current liabilities" are obligations payable (in most cases) within one year, such accounts 
payable, short-term notes payable, and accrued expenses (such as taxes and salaries). Id. at 1 18. 
8 
 Counsel asserts in his brief accompanying the appeal that the petitioner's other current liabilities listed at 
Line 18 of its IRS Form 1120, Schedule L, should not be considered in the calculation of the petitioner's 
ability to pay, as the liabilities are debts due to the petitioner's parent company. However, counsel provides 
no support for this assertion. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
EAC 04 2 14 50326 
Page 6 
Therefore, for the years 2001 and 2002, the petitioner did not have sufficient net current assets to pay the 
proffered wage of $67,000.00. For the year 2003, the petitioner had sufficient net current assets to pay the 
proffered wage. 
Thus, from the date the Form ETA 750 was accepted for processing by the DOL, the petitioner had not 
established that it had the continuing ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered wage as of the priority date 
through an examination of wages paid to the beneficiary, or its net income or net current assets except for 
2003 .9 
Counsel's assertions on appeal cannot be concluded to outweigh the evidence presented in the tax returns as 
submitted by the petitioner that demonstrates that the petitioner could not pay the proffered wage from the day 
the Form ETA 750 was accepted for processing by the DOL. 
The evidence submitted does not estabIish that the petitioner had the continuing ability to pay the proffered 
wage beginning on the priority date. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position.10 To determine whether a beneficiary is eligible for an 
employment based immigrant visa, CIS must examine whether the alien's credentials meet the requirements set 
CIS electronic records show that the petitioner filed at least five other 1-140 petitions which have been pending 
during the time period relevant to the instant petition. If the instant petition were the only petition filed by the 
petitioner, the petitioner would be required to produce evidence of its ability to pay the proffered wage to the 
single beneficiary of the instant petition. However, where a petitioner has filed multiple petitions for multiple 
beneficiaries which have been pending simultaneously, the petitioner must produce evidence that its job offers 
to each beneficiary are realistic, and therefore that it has the ability to pay the proffered wages to each of the 
beneficiaries of its pending petitions, as of the priority date of each petition and continuing until the 
beneficiary of each petition obtains lawful permanent residence. See Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142, 
144-145 (Acting Reg. Comm. 1977) (petitioner must establish ability to pay as of the date of the Form 
MA 7-50B job offer, the predecessor to the Form ETA 750). See also 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(g)(2). The other petitions 
submitted by the petitioner in May 2004, June 2005, July 2005, August 2005 and March 2006 were approved in 
August 2004, November 2005, January 2006, December 2005 and August 2006, respectively. The record in the 
instant case contains no information about the proffered wage for the beneficiaries of those petitions, about 
the current immigration status of the beneficiaries, whether the beneficiaries have withdrawn from the visa 
petition process, or whether the petitioner has withdrawn its job offers to the beneficiaries. Furthermore, no 
information is provided about the current employment status of the beneficiaries, the date of any hiring and 
any current wages of the beneficiaries. Since the record in the instant petition fails to establish the petitioner's 
ability to pay the proffered wage to the single beneficiary of the instant petition, it is not necessary to consider 
further whether the evidence also establishes the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiaries 
of the other petitions filed by the petitioner, or to other beneficiaries for whom the petitioner might wish to submit 
1-140 petitions based on the same approved ETA 750 labor certifications. 
10 
 An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identifjr all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1 043 (E.D. Cal. 200 I), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
EAC 04 214 50326 
Page 7 
forth in the labor certification. In evaluating the beneficiary's qualifications, CIS must look to the job offer 
portion of the labor certification to determine the required qualifications for the position. CIS may not ignore 
a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional requirements. See Matter of Silver Dragon 
Chinese Restaurant, 19 I&N Dec. 401, 406 (Comm. 1986). See also, Mandany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 
(D.C. Cir. 1983); K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1983); Stewart Infia-Red 
Commissary of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1981). 
In the instant case, the Application for Alien Employment Certification, Form ETA 750A, items 14 and 15, set 
forth the minimum education, training, and experience that an applicant must have for the position of 
programmer analyst. In the instant case, iten1 14 describes the requirements of the proffered position as follo~vs: 
14. Education 
Grade School x 
High School x 
College x 
College Degree Required Bachelor's 
Major Field of Study 
 Comp. Sc., Engg. 
The applicant must also have two years of experience in the job offered or two years of experience in computer 
software developing andlor consulting. The duties of the job offered are delineated at Item 13 of the Form ETA 
750A and since this is a public record, will not be recited in this decision. Item 15 of Form ETA 750A does not 
reflect any special requirements. 
The beneficiary set forth his credentials on Form ETA-7508. On Part 1 1, eliciting information of the names and 
addresses of schools, colleges and universities attended (including trade or vocational training facilities), he 
represented that he received a Bachelor of Science degree from Bombay University in India in 1980 and that he 
received a diploma in computer management from Bombay University in India in 199 1. He does not provide any 
additional information concerning his education on that form. Further, on Part 15, eliciting information of the 
beneficiary's work experience, he represented that he worked as a systems analyst for the petitioner from 
September 2001 to the date he signed the Form ETA 750B. He also represented that worked as a project 
manager for the petitioner's parent company in India from November 1998 to August 2001, that he worked as a 
project leader for Mastek Limited in India from May 1997 to October 1998, that he worked as an E.D.P. Manager 
for M.N. Dastur & Company from May 1996 to May 1997, and that he worked as a systems analyst for the 
National Institute of Industrial Engineering in India from April 1992 to February 1996. He does not provide any 
additional information concerning his employment background on that form. 
The record contains a copy of the beneficiary's Bachelor of Science degree from Bombay University in India, a 
copy of the beneficiary's diploma in computer management from Bombay University in India, an academic 
equivalency evaluation from The Trustforte Corporation dated March 23,2001, a letter dated September 14, 1998 
from Mastek Limited in India regarding the beneficiary's prior employment, a letter dated May 5, 1997 from 
M.N. Dastur & Company Ltd. in India regarding the beneficiary's prior employment, and a letter from The Zandu 
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. regarding the beneficiary's prior employment. 
The regulations define a third preference category professional as a "qualified alien who holds at least a 
United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree and who is a member of the professions." 
See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(1)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) states the following: 
EAC 04 214 50326 
Page 8 
If the petition is for a professional, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that the 
alien holds a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree and by 
evidence that the alien is a member of the professions. Evidence of a baccalaureate degree 
shall be in the form an official college or university record showing the date the baccalaureate 
degree was awarded and the area of concentration of study. To show that the alien is a 
member of the professions, the petitioner must submit evidence showing that the minimum of 
a baccalaureate degree is required for entry into the occupation. 
The above regulations use a singular description of foreign equivalent degree. Thus, the plain meaning of the 
regulatory language conceiliing the professional classification sets forth the requireinent that a beneficiary must 
produce one degree that is determined to be the foreign equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree in order to be 
qualified as a professional for third preference visa category purposes. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary holds a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree. The beneficiary holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Bombay University in India. The credentials 
evaluation submitted by the petitioner with the petition does not conclude that the applicant's course of instruction 
that led to the beneficiary's degree to be the equivalent of any specific amount of time spent at a U.S. college or 
university. A bachelor degree is generally found to require four years of education. Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 
244,245 (Comm. 1977). In that case, the Regional Commissioner declined to consider a three-year Bachelor of 
Science degree from India as the equivalent of a United States baccalaureate degree because the degree did not 
require four years of study. Matter of Shah, at 245. In the instant case, the beneficiary did not submit his 
transcripts from Bombay University or any other evidence to establish the dates of his attendance at the 
university. Therefore, the beneficiary's degree from Bombay University cannot be considered a foreign 
equivalent degree. 
The beneficiary also holds a diploma in computer management from Bombay University in India. However, 
the record does not demonstrate the diploma from Bombay University is a single academic degree that is a 
foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. bachelor's degree. As stated above, the regulation sets forth the 
requirement that a beneficiary must produce one degree that is determined to be the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree. The combination of a degree deemed less than the equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree and a diploma or certificate does not meet that requirement. 
The record contains an educational evaluation report from The Trustforte Corporation. CIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is 
not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, CIS is not required to accept or may give 
less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1 (Con~m. 1988). The evaluation 
from The Trustforte Corporation states that based on the beneficiary's Bachelor of Science degree from Bombay 
University and his diploma in computer management from Bombay University, the beneficiary has the 
equivalent of a United States bachelor of science degree in computer information systems. However, the 
evaluation does not conclude that the beneficiary's course of instruction that led to the degree or diploma to 
be the equivalent of any specific amount of time spent at a United States college or university. We do not find 
the detennination of the credentials evaluation probative in this matter. 
Further, the Trustforte Corporation is not a member of the National Association of Credential Evaluation 
Services (NACES). See http://www.naces.org/members.htm (accessed October 3, 2006). The U.S. 
Department of Education refers individuals seeking verification of the equivalency of their foreign degrees to 
American degrees through private credential evaluation services to NACES. The objective of NACES is to 
raise ethical standards in the types of credential evaluations provided by the private sector. In light of the 
EAC 04 214 50326 
Page 9 
AAO's findings concerning the beneficiary's educational program, the credential evaluation provided by The 
Trusf3orte Corporation carries little evidentiary weight in these proceedings. 
In this case, the labor certification clearly indicates that the beneficiary must possess a bachelor's degree in 
computer science or engineering, not a combination of a degree and a diploma which, when taken together, 
equals the same amount of coursework required for a United States baccalaureate degree. The petitioner has not 
demonstrated through the evidence contained in the record of proceeding that the beneficiary satisfies this 
requirement. 
In addition, regarding the beneficiary's work experience, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(1)(3) provides: 
(ii) Other docunzentation- ' 
(A) General. 
 Any requirements of training or experience for skilled workers, 
professionals, or other workers must be supported by 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. 
(B) Skilled workers. 
 If the petition is for a skilled worker, the petition must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien meets the educational, training or experience, 
and any other requirements of the individual labor certification, meets the requirements 
for Schedule A designation, or meets the requirements for the Labor Market Information 
Pilot Program occupation designation. The minimum requirements for this 
classification are at least two years of training or experience. 
The petitioner failed to provide the required documentation of the beneficiary's two years of prior work 
experience as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(1)(3). The letter dated September 14, 1998 from Mastek Limited 
in India states that the beneficiary worked as a project leader from May 5, 1997 to September 14, 1998. It 
also states that he worked on projects using COBOL, Mainframe and ORACLE. However, the letter does 
not list the beneficiary's job duties as project manager. Further, the letter dated May 5, 1997 from M.N. 
Dastur & Company Ltd. in India states that the beneficiary worked as assistant manager (sohare) from May 
27, 1996 to May 6, 1997. However, the letter does not list the beneficiary's job duties as assistant manager 
(software). Thus, the letters fro- Limited and & Company Ltd. do not meet the 
regulatory requirements of 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(1)(3). 
In addition, the letter from Th 
 Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. states that the beneficiary worked as a 
system analyst from February 2 MH o May 24, 1996. The letter states that the beneficiary was assigned to 
design the company's financial accounting system. However, the letter verifies approximately three months 
of the beneficiary's employment as a system analyst. The Form ETA 750 specifically requires that the 
beneficiary have two years of experience as a programmer analyst or two years of experience in computer 
software developing and/or consulting. The preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that the 
beneficiary acquired two years of qualifying experience in the job offered or the related occupation from the 
evidence submitted into this record of proceeding. Thus, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
EAC 04 2 14 50326 
Page 10 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.