dismissed EB-3 Case: It Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 22. 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an IT consulting services business. seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a technical 
recruiter. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference 
immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i). 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition on the ground that the evidence did 
not establish that the Petitioner met the minimum requirements of the labor certification. The 
Director granted the Petitioner's motion to reopen. but found that the grounds for denial had not 
been overcome and affirmed the original decision. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement and asserts that the denial of the petition should be 
reversed because the Beneficiary meets the minimum requirements of the labor certification. 
Upon de novo 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 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 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. ,'-.,'ee section 
212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(IJ) of the Act. Second, the employer tiles an immigrant visa petition with U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, 
1 
The date the labor certification is filed is called the "priority date.·· S'ee 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(d). The Petitioner must 
establish that all eligibility requirements for the petition have been satistied from the priority date onward. 
Matter qf C- Inc. 
if USCIS approves the petition, the foreign national may apply for an immigrant visa abroad OL if 
eligible, adjustment of status in the United States. See section 245 of the Act, 8 U.S. C. ~ 1255. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B) states. in pertinent part: 
If the petition is for a skilled worker, the petition must be accompanied by evidence 
that the [beneficiary J 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. 
A beneficiary must meet all of the education, training, experience. and other requirements of the 
labor certification as ofthe petition's priority date. See Matter o(rVing"s Tea House. 16 I&N Dec. 
158, 159 (Acting Reg'l. Comm'r 1977). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At issue here is whether the Beneficiary has the educational qualifications required by the labor 
certification. For the reasons discussed hereinafter. we find that the Beneficiary does not meet the 
minimum educational requirements specified on the labor certification. and therefore does not 
qualify for the job offered. 
The labor certification states the following with respect to the minimum requirements lor the job of 
technical recruiter: 
4. 
4-A. 
4-B. 
5. 
6. 
6-A. 
7. 
7-A. 
8. 
8-A. 
8-C. 
9. 
Education: 
Minimum level required: 
Specify the education required: 
Major Field of Study: 
Is training required for the job? 
Is experience in the job offered 
required? 
How long? 
Is an alternate field of study 
acceptable? 
What field of study? 
Is an alternate combination of 
education and experience 
acceptable? 
What level of education? 
How much experience? 
Is a foreign educational 
equivalent acceptable? 
2 
Other 
Bachelor's equivalent based on 
education & experience 
Human Resources 
No 
Yes 
24 months 
Yes 
Human Resources related 
Yes 
Bachelor's degree 
Two years 
Yes 
.
Matter of C- Inc. 
10. Is experience in an alternate 
occupation acceptable? 
1 0-A. How long? 
I 0-B. Job title of acceptable alternate 
occupation(s) 
Yes 
24 months 
Recruiter 
Box H.l4 of the labor certification ("Special skills or other requirements .. ) states that the employer 
"[w]ill accept any suitable combination of education and experience for H.8:· 
Section J of the labor certification states that the Beneficiary's highest level of education as required 
by the job of technical recruiter is a bachelor's degree in computer engineering from 
India, completed in 2004. The record includes copies of a diploma 
and transcripts from showing that the Beneficiary received a Bachelor of 
Engineering in the field of computer engineering on July 9. 2004, after completing a four-year. 
eight-semester academic program. 
Section K of the labor certification lists three jobs which the Beneficiary held in India. in 
the years 2005-2013, including two specifically in the recruitment field from September 2005 to 
February 2011 and from June 2011 to December 2013, before going to work with the Petitioner in 
December 2013. The record includes letters from the Beneficiary"s former employers confirming 
his prior work experience. 
The Director denied the petition finding that the Beneficiary did not meet the terms of the labor 
certification. In particular, the Director found that the Beneficiary does not have a bachelor"s degree 
in human resources. 
In 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 Modany ''· 
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. /d. 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 \'. Smith, 595 F. Supp. 
829, 833 (D.D.C. 1984) (emphasis added). Our 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. !d. at 834. 
In this case, the labor certification states that the minimum requirements for the position of technical 
recruiter are the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in human resources or a related field based on 
"education & experience" (H.4-A, H.4-B, H.7, and H.7-A) plus two years of experience in the job 
offered or in the related occupation of recruiter (H.6. H.6-A H.10, H.10-A. and H.IO-B). 
Alternatively, an applicant could meet the labor certification requirements with a bachelor's degree 
or a foreign educational equivalent plus two years of qualifying experience (H.8, H.8-A, H.8-C, and 
.
Matter of C- Inc. 
H.9). Thus, as the Petitioner contends on appeal, the labor certification does not require a bachelor's 
degree in human resources, but it does require the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in human 
resources based on education and experience. 
Although the record establishes that the proffered position allows for a combination of education and 
experience equivalent to a bachelor's degree in human resources. it does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary has such an equivalent. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has the equivalent of 
a bachelor's degree in human resources based on a combination of his four-year bachelor of 
engineering degree in the field of computer engineering plus years of work experience as a recruiter. 
The Petitioner submitted three evaluations of the U.S. educational equivalency of the Beneficiary's 
Indian degree and work experience. The first evaluation is from 
in Maryland, which concluded that the Reneticimfs bachelor 
of engineering degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer engineering. that his 
work experience in his first two jobs is equivalent to at least one and a half years of education in the 
field of human resource management, and that this education and experience combined is equivalent 
to a U.S. bachelor's degree with a dual major in computer engmeenng and human resource 
management. The second and third evaluations are from of 
in Nebraska evaluation) and of the 
in Connecticut 1 evaluation), both of which concluded that the Beneficiary's 
bachelor of engineering degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in that field, that his work 
experience in his second job from September 2005 to February 2011 is equivalent to at least one and 
a half years of education in the field of human resources. and that this education and experience 
combined is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in human resources. 
Contrary to the Petitioner's claims, these eva) uations arc not suflicient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary has the required degree equivalent. Evaluations of academic credentials and work 
experience by evaluation services and individual evaluators arc utilized by USCIS as advisory 
opinions only. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable, USC IS is not obliged to accept it or may give it less weight. ,','ee Afatter of Sea. Inc .. 
19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm 'r 1988). 
The evaluation provides no rationale for its conclusion that the Beneficiary's \Vork experience 
in the field of human resources combined with a bachelor's degree in the unrelated field of computer 
engineering adds up to the equivalent of a bachelor's degree with a dual major in computer science 
and human resource management. While asserting that the Beneficiary's work experience was 
equivalent to at least one and a half years of education in the field of human resource management 
the evaluation does not discuss the specific job duties performed by the Beneficiary or how they. or 
the knowledge gained thereby, related to the academic requirements for a degree in the field of 
human resource management. Like the evaluation asserts that the Beneficiary's 
work experience was equivalent to at least one and a half years of coursework in the field of human 
resource management, but does not discuss how the job duties perhm11ed by the Beneficiary. or the 
knowledge gained thereby, related to the specific coursework required for a degree in the field of 
human resource management. As for the evaluation. it identities the courscwork and 
4 
.
Matter of C-Ine. 
other curricular requirements for a bachelor's degree in human resources. summarizes the duties 
performed by the Beneficiary in his human resource jobs, and concludes that the knowledge he 
acquired in that work corresponded to the knowledge gained by a student completing a bachelor's 
degree in human resources. However. the evaluation does not relate the Beneficiary's 
specific experience in human resource management to specific courses required for a degree in that 
field. For example, although the evaluation lists the curricular requirements of Organizational 
Policy and Strategy and Employment Law, it does not explain which portion of the Bendiciary·s 
work experience or which specific duties he performed would be equivalent to a course in these 
subject areas. The evaluation does not claim that the Beneficiary's work experience 
was equivalent to four years of academic coursework. but rather that the Beneticim-y's work from 
2005 to 2011 was equivalent to at least one and a half years of academic training in human 
resources. But the evaluation does not explain how work experience equivalent to a 
year and a half of education in the field of human resources evolves into the equivalent of a 
bachelor's degree in human resources simply by attaching that experience to a bachelor's degree in 
the unrelated field of computer engineering. Indeed, none of the three evaluations submitted by the 
Petitioner explains why adding work experience equivalent of one and a half years of coursework in 
human resources to a four-year technical degree like computer engineering would result in the 
equivalent of a bachelor's degree in human resources. 
On appeal the Petitioner cites the regulation applicable to nonimmigrant r·H-1 B'') workers whereby 
three years of experience is equal to one year of education for purposes of determining the 
equivalency of the education and experience to a bachelor's degree. According to the Petitioner. this 
standard (three years of experience and/or specialized training equals one year of education) should 
be utilized in adjudicating immigrant petitions for skilled workers since there is no applicable 
regulation for this "EB-3" visa classification, and 
the standard was in fact utilized in the 
and evaluations to determine the U.S. educational equivalency of the 
Beneficiary's degree and experience in India? 
The Petitioner's argument is off the mark. The issue on appeal is not whether the H-1 B regulation 
should be applied to this "EB-3" petition, but whether the Beneficiary's education and experience 
meet the minimum requirements of the labor certification. As evident from his transcripts. the 
Beneficiary's degree in computer engineering did not include any coursework in human resources. 
The Beneficiary's subsequent job experience appears to have been exclusively. or almost 
exclusively, in the field of recruitment. Thus, the claim of bachelor's degree equivalency in human 
resources based on a combination of education and experience. as propounded in the 
and evaluations, is not substantiated by the evidence in the record. 
2 
Although the Petitioner states on appeal that it always intended to use the three to one ratio to determine an 
equivalency, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that this intent was communicated to DOL or to U.S. workers. 
such that any interested applicants would have known of their ability to apply for the position based on this three to one 
formula. 
Matter of C- Inc. 
We conclude, therefore, that the evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary has the equivalent 
of a bachelor's degree in human resources based on a combination of his education and experience. 
Accordingly, the Beneficiary does not meet the minimum requirements of the labor certification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets the 
minimum requirements of the labor certification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter (~lC- Inc., ID# 73 7831 (AAO Nov. 22, 20 17)