dismissed EB-3 Case: Jewelry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 13 714893 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for a Professional 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : MAR. 19, 2021 
The Petitioner, a jewelry wholesale and retail business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
management analyst. It requests professional classification for the Beneficiary under the third 
preference immigrant category . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based "EB-3" immigrant classification allows a U.S. 
employer to sponsor a professional with a baccalaureate degree for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition on the ground that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary has a U.S . bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree, as 
required to meet the educational requirement of the labor certification and to qualify for classification 
as a professional. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits a brief and supporting documentation , most of which was already in 
the record. According to the Petitioner the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary has a foreign 
equivalent degree to a U.S. bachelor's degree, and therefore has the requisite education to meet the 
labor certification requirement and qualify for professional classification. 1 
In visa petition proceedings it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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). See section 212(a)(5) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5). By approving the labor certification, the DOL certifies that there are 
1 The Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, was filed by the Petitioner without legal representation on July 30, 2020. 
On Septembr 8, 2020, an appeal brief with supporting materials was filed by the Petitioner 's fonner counsel,C] 
I of thd I However, the filing was not accompanied by a new, properly executed Form 
G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative , as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 292.4(a). Therefore, on October 5, 2020, we sent a Notice of Self-Representation to the Petitioner, stating that: "This 
notice is to infonn you that we consider the ... petitioner to be self-represented for the above-referenced appeal." 
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 instant petition was accompanied by a labor certification that was filed with the DOL on June 18, 
2013, and certified by the DOL on February 18, 2014. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) 
states, in pertinent part: 
If the petition is for a professional, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that 
the [beneficiary] holds a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree . . . Evidence of a baccalaureate degree shall be in the form of an official 
college or university record showing the date the baccalaureate degree was awarded 
and the area of concentration of study. 
A beneficiary must also meet the specific educational, training, experience, and other requirements of 
the labor certification as of the petition's priority date, 2 which in this case is June 18, 2013. See Matter 
of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
The requirements for the proffered position of management analyst are indicated in section H of the 
labor certification, which specifies that a bachelor's degree in "science/business management" or a 
foreign educational equivalent is required. According to section J (boxes 11-16) of the labor 
certification, the Beneficiary met the educational reJuirements of section H by virtue of a bachelor of 
science degree in 1988 froml I University in I India. 
As evidence of the Beneficiary's educational credentials the Petitioner submitted copies of the 
following documents: 
• A diploma and transcript fro~ I University indicating that the Beneficiary received 
a bachelor of science after examinations in February 1988 that completed either a two-year 
or a three-year degree program. 3 
• A statement of marks, a provisional certificate, and a diploma froml O I University 
i~ I India, according to which the Beneficiary was awarded a master of science in 
zoology on January 28, 2005, after completing an academic program of uncertain length 
and passing the degree examination in December 2004. 
2 The priority date of an employment-based immigrant petition is the date the underlying labor certification is filed with 
the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( d). 
3 Neither the diploma nor the transcript is clear on its face as to whether the bachelor of science is a two-year or a three­
year degree. 
2 
• An evaluation of the Beneficiary's educational credentials by Multinational Education & 
Information Services, Inc. (MEIS), dated January 15, 2015, which asserts that the 
Beneficiary's bachelor's degree frottj !University is equivalent to three years of 
academic studies at a U.S. university, 4 that his master of science degree from I I 
University is equivalent to two years of postgraduate study at a U.S. university, and that 
the second degree following the first is equivalent to a bachelor's degree in science plus 
one year of graduate studies from a U.S. university. 
Thus, the Petitioner submitted documentary evidence of an educational degree for the Beneficiary at 
.__ ____ _.I University that was not identified or claimed in the labor certification. 
Though the labor certification does not require any experience to qualify for the proffered position, 
the Beneficiary's prior work experience is nonetheless listed in section K. Three jobs are listed from 
July 2001 to the filing of the labor certification application in June 2013. As listed in the labor 
certification, the jobs include: (1) manager of a jewelJ business inl I India, from July 2001 
to October 2003; (2) manager of a jewelry business in !Michigan, from November 2003 
to November 2008; and (3) management analyst with the Petitioner inl I Missouri (a former 
address), from November 2009 onward. 
In a notice of intent to deny (NOID) issued on April 21, 2020, the Director reviewed the Petitioner's 
three previous Form 1-140 petitions filed on behalf of the Beneficiary in 2010, 2012, and 2014, the 
first two of which requested advanced degree professional classification, and the third of which (like 
the current petition filed in 2015) requested professional classification. The first two petitions were 
accompanied by a labor certification that was filed with the DOL and certified in 2010, while the third 
and fourth petitions were accompanied by the labor certification that was filed with the DOL in 2013 
and certified in 2014. Neither of the labor certifications, including that filed with the advanced de:ree 
professional petitions, claimed that the Beneficiary earned a master's degree at I I 
University in 2005 and no claim was made in any of the first three petitions that the Beneficiary earned 
such a degree. All three of the previous petitions were denied on the ground that the Beneficiary's 
degree fronl I University, the only educational degree identified in the labor certifications, was 
not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, as required for professional or advanced degree 
professional classification. 
The Director also highlighted the fact that the labor certification in this matter indicates the Beneficiary 
was working in I I Michigan, from November 2003 to November 2008, 5 and that 
4 An earlier evaluation by METS, authored by the same evaluator on March 25, 2009, and submitted in support of previous 
Form T-140 petitions submitted by the Petitioner au hehf If of the Beneficiary in 2010, 2012, and 2014, asserted that the 
Beneficiary's bachelor of science degree froml ,,. _University was equivalent to two (not three) years of academic 
studies at a U.S. university. Furthermore, the METS evaluation in 2009, unlike the later evaluation in 2015, made no 
mention of any master's degree earned by the Beneficiary atl I University in 2005. As a matter of discretion, 
we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 T&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). We may give an opinion less weight, however, ifit is not in accord with other information in the record 
or is in any way questionable. Id. Due to the inconsistencies in the two MEIS evaluations discussed above, the 2015 
evaluation submitted in this proceeding has limited evidentiary weight. 
5 The earlier labor certification filed with the Petitioner's first two Form I-140 petitions also listed the Beneficiary's~!-~ 
[=:J Michigan, employment in the years 2003-2008. 
3 
employment verification letters were submitted with the earlier pet1t10ns to substantiate the 
employment claims. In view of the Beneficiary's employment history, the Director questioned how 
the Beneficiary could study and earn a degree at an Indian university in 2004-2005 at the same time 
he was working in the United States. 
In response to the NOID the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary was able to work in the United 
States while earning a master's degree in India because "the Master's Program was done through 
correspondence, which is evidenced by the Marksheet, which indicates that there were no lab classes 
for this course." According to the Petitioner, the Beneficiary's master's degree froml I 
University was not mentioned in either of the two labor certifications "[ s ]ince USCIS does not give 
much importance to the correspondence courses." 
The Director regarded the Petitioner's response to the NOID as inadequate, and denied the petition. 
In his decision the Director pointed out that the statement of marks froml I University does 
not identify any of the classes as correspondence courses. The Director also noted that the Petitioner 
did not provide any documentation from the university confirming that it offers correspondence 
courses or a letter from the university verifying the Beneficiary's degree. In sum, the Director 
indicated that he was not persuaded as to the authenticity of the Beneficiary's degree from 
I I University. The Director also stated that the foregoing circumstances indicated the 
possibility of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact in the labor certification and the 
associated petition, though no specific finding was made in this regard. 
On appeal the Petitioner reiterates its contention that the Beneficiary earned a two-year master's degree 
through correspondence courses atl I University at the same time he was working in the 
United States; that this degree, building on the Beneficiary's previous three-year bachelor's degree 
froml I university, is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree and one year of post-graduate 
study; and that the U.S. equivalency of the Beneficiary's degree froml I University meets 
the educational requirement of the labor certification and qualifies him for professional classification. 
However, the Petitioner does not submit any further documentation to verify the authenticity of the 
Beneficiary's alleged degree froml I University. Contrary to the Petitioner's claim, the 
statement of marks does not identify any of the. listed classes as correspondence courses. Moreover, 
the academic record appears incomplete since the statement of marks is identified as the final year of 
the Beneficiary's Master of Science (Zoology), Session 2004-2005. There is no statement of marks 
for any prior year in t~e degree program. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to submit a letter from an 
authorized official of1 I University verifying the authenticity of the Beneficiary's degree, 
as noted in the Director's decision. 
It is remarkable that a master's degree from an accredited Indian university would not be identified in 
the labor certifications accompanying four separate I-140 petitions, especially since all four requested 
professional or advanced degree professional classification and the three earlier petitions were all 
denied on the ground that the Beneficiary's (two-year) bachelor's degree froml I University 
was not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The labor certification accompanying the instant 
petition continues to identify the Beneficiary's bachelor's degree from I I University in 1988 
(now claimed to be a three-year degree) as the Beneficiary's highest level of education relevant to the 
proffered position of management analyst. Considering the Petitioner's prior petitions all resulted in 
4 
denials for professional or advanced degree professional classification based on the Beneficiary's 1988 
degree froml I University, the Petitioner's explanation that it did not mention a 2005 master's 
degree from! !university in either of the two labor certifications because "USCIS does not 
give much importance to the correspondence courses" does not seem credible. If USCIS does not 
believe that a fact stated in support of a petition is true, it may reject that fact. See section 204(b) of 
the Act; Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989; Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 
705 F.Supp.2d 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F.Supp.2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
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. 
As discussed in the foregoing analysis, the Petitioner has not resolved the inconsistencies in the record. 
It has not offered a plausible explanation for its failure to identify the Beneficiary's alleged master's 
degree froml I University in the labor certifications accompanying four separate I-140 
petitions, including the current one. It has not submitted the Beneficiary's complete academic record 
from that university. Most importantly, it has not submitted a letter from an authorized official of 
I !University verifying the authenticity of the Beneficiary's degree. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has a master's degree from I University. 
Thus, the Beneficiary's highest degree, as far as the record establishes, is his two- or three-year 
bachelor of science from! !University, which is not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree 
which generally requires four years of academic studies. See Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244, 245 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1977). The degree froml I University does not meet the educational 
requirement of the labor certification and is insufficient to qualify the Beneficiary for the requested 
classification of professional. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree, as required to meet the educational requirement of the labor certification and to 
qualify for professional classification. We will dismiss the appeal for this reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5