dismissed EB-3 Case: Jewelry Wholesale

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF G-&D-, INC. DATE: DEC. 9, 2016 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISJON 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a jewelry wholesaler, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an administrative support 
manager. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a professional under the third preference 
immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A)(ii). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. 
employer to sponsor a professional with a baccalaureate degree for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition, finding that the Beneficiary did not hold the 
baccalaureate degree required by the labor certification. 
The matter is before us on appeal. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has the education and 
experience necessary to provide her with the equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
At the outset, it is important to discuss the respective roles of the Department of Labor (DOL) and 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the employment-based immigrant visa 
process. The labor certification in this matter is certified by the DOL. The DOL's role in this process is 
set forth at section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, which provides: 
\ __ 
Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or 
unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has detennined and 
certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that-
(I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally 
qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time 
of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place 
where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and 
(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and 
working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed. 
Matter ofG-&D-, Inc. 
It is left to USCIS to determine whether the offered position and the beneficiary qualify for the 
requested preference classification, and whether the beneficiary satisfies the minimum requirements 
of the offered position as set forth on the labor certification. 
There is no doubt that the authority to make preference classification decisions rests 
with INS. The language of section 204 cannot be read otherwise. See Castaneda­
Gonzalez v. INS, 564 F.2d 417, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In tum, DOL has the authority 
to make the two determinations listed in section 212(a)(14). 1 Id. at 423. The 
necessary result of these two grants of authority is that section 212(a)(14) 
determinations are not subject to review by INS absent fraud or willful 
misrepresentation, but all matters relating to preference classification eligibility not 
expressly delegated to DOL remain within INS' authority. 
Given the language of the Act, the totality of the legislative history, and the agencies' 
own interpretations of their duties under the Act, we must conclude that Congress did 
not intend DOL to have primary authority to make any determinations other than the 
two stated in section 212(a)(14). If DOL is to analyze alien qualifications, it is for 
the purpose of "matching" them with those of corresponding United States workers so 
that it will then be "in a position to meet the requirement of the law," namely the 
section 212(a)(14) determinations. 
Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Relying in part on Madany, 696 F.2d 
at 1008, the Ninth Circuit stated: 
[I]t appears that the DOL is responsible only for determining the availability of 
suitable American workers for a job and the impact of alien employment upon the 
domestic labor market. It does not appear that the DOL's role extends to determining 
if the alien is qualified for the job for which he seeks sixth preference status. That 
determination appears to be delegated to the INS under section 204(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1154(b ), as one of the determinations incident to the INS's decision whether the 
alien is entitled to sixth preference status. 
KR.K Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1983). The court relied on an amicus brief 
from the DOL that stated the following: 
The labor certification made by the Secretary of Labor . . . pursuant to section 
212(a)(14) ofthe [Act] is binding as to the findings of whether there are able, willing, 
qualified, and available United States workers for the job offered to the alien, and 
1 Based on revisions to the Act, the current citation is section 212(a)(5)(A). 
2 
Matter of G-&D-, Inc. 
whether employment of the alien under the terms set by the employer would 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed United 
States workers. The labor certification in no way indicates that the alien offered the 
certified job opportunity is qual~fied (or not qualified) to perform th_e duties of that 
job. 
(Emphasis added.) !d. at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citing K.R.K. Irvine. Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006, revisited 
this issue, stating: 
The Department of Labor (DOL) must certify that insufficient domestic workers are 
available to perform the job and that the alien's performance of the job will not 
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed domestic 
workers. !d. § 212(a)(l4), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14). The INS then makes its own 
determination of the alien's entitlement to sixth preference status. !d. § 204(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). See generally K.R.K. Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 
1 008 9th Cir.1983 ). 
The INS, therefore, may make a de novo determination of whether the alien is in fact 
qualified to fill the certified job offer. 
Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F. 2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984). 
Therefore, it is the DOL's responsibility to determine whether there are qualified U.S. workers 
available to perform the offered position, and whether the employment of the beneficiary will 
adversely affect similarly employed U.S. workers. It is the responsibility of USCIS to determine if 
the beneficiary qualifies for the offered position, and whether the offered position and beneficiary 
are eligible for the requested employment-based immigrant visa classification. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner requests classification of the Beneficiary as a professional. Section 
203(b )(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(3)(A)(ii), grants preference classification to qualified 
immigrants who hold baccalaureate degrees and are members of the professions. See also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) states, in part: 
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 of an official college or university record 
showing the date the baccalaureate degree was awarded and the area of 
concentration of study. 
3 
Matter of G-&D-, Inc. 
Section 101(a)(32) of the Act defines the term "profession" to include, but is not limited to, "architects, 
engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, 
academies, or seminaries." If the offered position is not statutorily defined as a profession, "the 
petitioner must submit evidence showing that the minimum of a baccalaureate degree is required for 
entry into the occupation." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C). 
In addition, the job offer portion of the labor certification underlying a petition for a professional "must 
demonstrate that the job requires the minimum of a baccalaureate degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(i). 
I 
Therefore, a petition for a professional must establish that the occupation of the offered position is listed 
as a profession at section 101(a)(32) of the Act or requires a bachelor's degree as a minimum for entry; 
the beneficiary possesses at least a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree from a college 
or university; and the job offer portion of the labor certification requires at least a bachelor's degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree. 
The beneficiary must also meet all of the requirements of the offered position set forth on the labor 
certification by the priority date of the petition. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1), (12). See Matter of Wing's 
Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
At issue in this case is whether the Beneficiary possesses a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree, and whether the Beneficiary meets the requirements of the labor certification. 
A. The Beneficiary Must Possess a U.S. Bachelor's Degree or Foreign Equivalent Degree 
As is noted above, in order to be classified as a professional, the Beneficiary must possess at least a 
U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree from a college or university. The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C). uses a singular description of the degree required for classification as a 
professional. In 1991, when the final rule for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 was published in the Federal Register, 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now USCIS, or Service), responded to criticism that the 
regulation required an alien to have a bachelor's degree as a minimum and that the regulation did not 
allow for the substitution of experience for education. After reviewing section 121 of the 
Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649 (1990), and the Joint Explanatory Statement of the 
Committee of Conference, the Service specifically noted that both the Act and the legislative history 
indicate that an alien must have at least a bachelor's degree: "[B]oth the Act and its legislative 
history make clear that, in order to qualify as a professional under the third classification or to have 
experience equating to an advanced degree under the second, an alien must have at least a 
bachelor's degree." 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (Nov. 29, 1991) (emphasis added). 
It is significant that both section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act and therelevant regulations use the word 
"degree" in relation to professionals. A statute should be construed under the assumption that 
Congress intended it to have purpose and meaningful effect. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. v. Pueblo 
of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237, 249 (1985); Sutton v. United States, 819 F.2d. 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 
4 
Matter of G-&D-, Inc. 
1987). It can be presumed that Congress' requirement of a single "degree" for members of the 
professions is deliberate. 
The regulation also requires the submission of "an official college or university record showing the 
date the baccalaureate degree was awarded and the area of concentration of study." 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C) (emphasis added). In another context, Congress has broadly referenced "the 
possession of a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or 
other institution of learning." Section 203(b)(2)(C) of the Act (relating to aliens of exceptional 
ability). However, for the professional category, it is clear that the degree must be from a college or 
university. 
In Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006), the court 
held that, in professional and advanced degree professional cases, where the beneficiary is statutorily 
required to hold a baccalaureate degree, USCIS properly concluded that a single foreign degree or its 
equivalent is required. See also Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act No. 06-2158 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2008) 
(for professional classification, USCIS regulations require the beneficiary to possess a single 4-year 
U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree). 
Thus, the plain meaning of the Act and the regulations is that the beneficiary of a petition for a 
professional must possess a degree from a college or university that is at least a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree. 
In the present case, the labor certification states the following requirements for the position of 
administrative support manager: 
H.4. 
H.4-B. 
H.5. 
H.6. 
H.7. 
H.8. 
H.9. 
H.10. 
H.10-A. 
H.1 0-B. 
H.14. 
Education: Bachelor's. 
Major field of study: Business administration or equivalent. 
Training: None required. 
Experience in the job offered: Not required. 
Alternate field of study: None accepted. 
Alternate combination of education and experience: None accepted. 
Foreign educational equivalent: Accepted. 
Experience in an alternate occupation: Accepted. 
No. of months experience in alternate occupation: 12. 
Job title of alternate occupation: Relating experience. 
Specific skills or other requirements: Minimum Requirements: Bachelor's 
degree in Business Administration or equivalent & 12 months of relating 
expenence. 
Any suitable combination of education, experience, or training is acceptable. 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on November 19, 2015. 
To establish the Beneficiary's academic qualifications for the job opportunity, the Petitioner 
provided a copy of a September 3, 2010, evaluation of the Beneficiary's education and professional 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-&D- , Inc. 
experience, prepared by 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted copies of a certificate documenting the award of the 
Beneficiary's 1999 bachelor's degree in commerce from the a June 28, 1999, 
certificate reflecting the Beneficiary's successful completion of the examination for her bachelor's 
degree, as well as a copy of her marks; the Beneficiary's academic transcripts from the 
the results of the Beneficiary's Secondary School Certificate Examination and Higher 
Secondary School Certificate Examination; and letters from two of the Beneficiary 's former 
employers, and To prove its 
ability to pay the Beneficiary the proffered wage, the Petitioner submitted copies of its 2013 and 
2014 IRS Forms 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Returns for an S Corporation, and a balance sheet ending 
September 30, 2015. 
On March 9, 2016, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) to the Petitioner, informing it 
that the submitted did not establish that the Beneficiary had the 
baccalaureate degree required by the labor certification. The Director advised the Petitioner that to 
satisfy the labor certification's degree requirement, i~ must submit proof that the Beneficiary had a . 
U.S. bachelor's degree in business' administration or a foreign equivalent degree, supported by a 
credentials evaluation. 
The Petitioner replied to the RFE on March 28, 2016. In its response, it asserted that the 
Beneficiary's 3-year Indian bachelor's degree and more than 5 years of employment experience 
provided her with a degree equivalency that met the labor certification 's requirement for a "suitable 
combination of education, experience, or training." In support of this claim, the Petitioner again 
provided the September 3, 2010, the previously submitted documentation of 
the Beneficiary's degree from the and the experience letter from 
The Director denied the visa petition on May 25, 2016, concluding that the Petitioner's response to 
the RFE had not established that the Beneficiary heid the baccalaureate degree required by the labor 
certification. On June 24, 2016, the Petitioner appealed the Director's decision, asserting that the 
Director had erred as a matter of law in his interpretation of the term professional provided at 
8 C.F .R. § 204.5(1). It submitted a brief in support of the appeal on July 20, 2016. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary may qualify for the offered position based on. 
the degree equivalency established by the as the labor certification indicates 
that position's academic requirements may be satisfied by a "Bachelor's degree in Business 
Administration or equivalent" or, alternatively, "any suitable combination of education, experience 
or training." It asserts that as a result, the Director erred in finding that the Beneficiary did not meet 
the educational requirements of the labor certification. The Petitioner also questions the Director' s 
authority to define the bachelor's degree requirement in the labor certification according to USCIS 
regulations. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-&D-, Inc. 
The Petitioner relies on the Beneficiary's 3-year bachelor's degree combined with work experience 
as being equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. A 3-year bachelor's degree will generally not be 
considered to be a "foreign equivalent degree" to a U.S. baccalaureate. See Matter of Shah, 17 I&N 
Dec. 244 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977). Where the analysis of the beneficiary's credentials relies on a 
combination of lesser degrees and/or work experience, the result is the "equivalent" of a bachelor's 
degree rather than a full U.S. baccalaureate or foreign equivalent degree required for classification as 
a professional. 
According to a September 3, 2010, evaluation of the Beneficiary's education and professional 
experience, prepared by the 
Beneficiary's bachelor of commerce degree from the is equivalent to 3 years 
of academic coursework from an accredited institution in the United States. further 
determined 
that the Beneficiary holds at least the equivalent of U.S. bachelor's degree in business 
administration, with a concentration in accounting, based on a combination of her education and 
work experience. We have also reviewed the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) 
created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO). According to its website, AACRAO is "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional 
association of more than 11,000 higher education professionals who represent approximately 2,600 
institutions in more than 40 countries." About AACRAO, http://www.aacrao.org/home/about (last 
visited Nov. 30, 2016). According to the registration page for EDGE, EDGE is "a web-based 
resource for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials." AACRAO EDGE, 
http://edge.aacrao.org/info.php (last visited Nov. 30, 2016). 
According to EDGE, a 3-year bachelor of commerce degree from India is comparable to "three years 
of university study in the United States." AACRAO EDGE , 
http://edge.aacrao.org /country/credential/bachelor-of-arts-ba-bachelor-of-commerce-bcom-bachelor­
of-science-bsc?cid=single (last visited Nov. 30, 2016). This conclusion matches the determination 
of regarding the Beneficiary's bachelor of commerce degree. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that Director erred in finding the Beneficiary unqualified for the job 
opportunity as the terms of the ETA Form 9089 allow for a degree equivalency. It contends that 
pages 2-3 of the labor certification reflect its academic requirements for the offered position as a 
"bachelor's degree in Business Administration or equivaleYJf." 
The ETA Form 9089 reflects that the Petitioner, when indicating the minimum level of education 
required for the job opportunity in Part H.4., checked "Bachelor's." In Part H.4-B., where 
employers are asked to identify the field(s) in which a required degree must be held, the Petitioner 
stated "Business Administration or equivalent." Therefore, the terms of the labor certification at 
Parts H.4 and H.4-B. do not state that the Beneficiary may qualify for the offered position based on a 
bachelor's degree in business administration or its equivalent (e.g., a combination of a lesser degree 
and work experience). Rather, they require her to have a bachelor's degree in business 
administration or an equivalent field of study. The Petitioner's placement of the word "equivalent" 
in Part H.4-B. does not allow for another interpretation. 
Matter ofG-&D-, Inc. 
The Petitioner also claims on appeal that the alternative language it listed in Part H.l4. of the labor 
certification, "Any suitable combination of education, experience, or training is acceptable," allows 
the Beneficiary to satisfy its requirement for a baccalaureate degree with a degree equivalency (e.g., 
a combination of a lesser degree and work experience). We disagree. 
We note that the Petitioner's language in Part H.14. comes from the Board of Alien Labor 
Certification Appeals (BALCA) ruling in Matter of Francis Kellogg, 1994-INA-465 and 544, 1995-
INA-68 (BALCA Feb. 2, 1998) (en bane), which found that: 
where the alien does not meet the primary job requirements, but only potentially 
qualifies for the job because the employer has chosen to Jist alternative requirements, 
the employer's alternative requirements are unlawfully tailored to the alien's 
qualifications ... unless the employer has indicated that applicants with any suitable 
combination of education, training or experience are acceptable. 
The statement that an employer will accept applicants with "any suitable combination of education, 
training or experience" is commonly referred to as "Kellogg language." 
We do not, however, consider the presence of Kellogg language in Part H.14. of a labor certification 
to have any material effect on the interpretation of the minimum requirements of the job 
opportunity.2 Instead, we interpret the phrase "any suitable combination of education, training 
and/or experience" to be education, training, or experience that is equal'to or greater than the specific 
requirements listed on the labor certification. 
In the present case, the Petitioner indicated on the labor certification that the offered pos1t10n 
requires a U.S. bachelor's degree in business administration or an "equivalent" field and that it 
would accept an equivalent foreign degree (Parts H.4., H.4-B., and H.9.). The ETA Form 9089 also 
reflects that the Petitioner indicated that it would not accept any alternate combination of education 
and experience in place of the required degree (Part H.8.). We further note that Part J.ll. ofthe 
labor certification indicates that the Beneficiary's highest level of education relevant to the required 
occupation is a bachelor's degree, and that the Petitioner checked "N/A" (not applicable) in response 
to the question in Part 1.19 ., "Does the alien possess the alternate combination of education and 
experience as indicated in question H.8?" In light of these responses, and reading the labor 
certification as a whole, we cannot interpret the Kellogg language in Part H.14. of the labor 
2 In the past, DOL denied labor certification applications containing alternative requirements if the applications did not 
contain Kellogg language in Part H.14. However, two BALCA decisions have lessened this requirement. In Federal 
Insurance Co., 2008-PER-00037 (BALCA Feb. 20, 2009), BALCA held that the ETA Form 9089 failed to provide a 
reasonable means for an employer to include the Kellogg language on the labor certification. Therefore, BALCA 
concluded that the denial of the labor certification for failure to write the Kellogg language on the labor certification 
application violated due process. Also, in Matter of Agma Systems LLC, 2009-PER-00 132 (BALCA Aug. 6, 2009), 
BALCA held that the requirement to include Kellogg language did not apply when the alternative requirements were 
"substantially equivalent" to the primary requirements. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-&D-, Inc. 
certification as allowing the Beneficiary to qualify for the offered position based on a combination of 
a lesser degree and work experience. 
The Petitioner asserts that USCIS does not have the authority to define the degree requirement stated in 
the labor certification according to USCIS regulatory requirements, pointing to the decision in Grace 
Korean United Methodist Church v. Chertoff, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (D. Or. 2005), in support of its 
claim. 
A federal district court in Grace Korean held that USCIS "does not have the authority or expertise to 
impose its strained definition of 'B.A. or equivalent' on that term as set forth in the labor 
certification," /d. at 1179. However, although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision 
will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be 
followed as a matter of law. See Matter of K-S- , 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719 (BIA 1993). Moreover , we 
note that a judge in the same district subsequently held that the assertion that DOL certification 
precludes USCIS from considering whether the alien meets the educational requirements specified in 
the labor certification is wrong. Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 *5. In 
Snap names . com, the labor certification application specified an educational requirement of 4 years 
of college and a 'B.S . or foreign equivalent.' The beneficiary had a 3-year degree and membership 
in the which USCIS concluded did not qualify the 
beneficiary for classification as an advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2); or as a professional or skilled worker under section 203(b)(3) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3). The court upheld USCIS ' determinations as they related to the advanced 
degree professional and professional classifications but reversed its decision regarding the skilled 
worker classification. 
In reaching its conclusions, the court deterrn,ined that 'B .S. or foreign equivalent' relates solely to the 
alien's educational background, precluding consideration of the alien's combined education and 
work experience. /d. at *11-13. Additionally, the court determined that the word 'equivalent' in the 
employer's educational requirements was ambiguous and that in the context of skilled worker 
petitions (where there is no statutory educational requirement), deference must be given to the 
employer 's intent. Jd at * 14. However, in professional and advanced degree professional cases, 
where the alien is statutorily required to hold a bachelor's degree, the court concluded that USCIS 
had properly found that a single degree or its equivalent is required. /d. at* 17, 19. It recognized that 
even though the labor certification may be prepared with the alien in mind, USCIS has an independent 
role in determining whether the alien meets the labor certification requirements. /d. at *7. As a result, 
the court concluded that where the plain language of those requirements does not support the 
petitioner's asserted intent, USCIS "does not err 
in applying the requirements as written." /d. 
After reviewing all of the evid~nce in the record, it is concluded that the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary has a U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree from 
a college or university. Therefore, the Beneficiary does not qualify for classification as a 
professional under section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-&D-, Inc. 
B. The Beneficiary Must Meet the Minimum Requirements of the Offered Position 
The Beneficiary must also meet all of the minimum requirements of the offered position as set forth 
on the labor certification by the priority date. In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, USCIS 
must look to the job offer portion of the labor certification to determine the required qualifications 
for the position. USCIS may not ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose 
additional requirements. See .. Vadany, 696 F.2d at 1008; K.R.K. Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006; 
Stewart Infra-Red Commissary of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d I (1st Cir. 1981). 
USCIS must examine "the language of the labor certification job requirements" in order to determine 
what the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary has to be found qualified for the position. 
Madany, 696 F.2d at 1015. USCIS interprets the meaning of terms used to describe the 
requirements of a job in a labor certification by "examin[ing] the certified job offer exactly as it is 
completed by the prospective employer." Rosedale Linden Park Company v. Smith, 595 F. Supp. 
829, 833 (D.D.C. 1984) (emphasis added). USCIS' interpretation of the job's requirements, as 
stated on the labor certification must involve "reading and applying the plain language of the [labor 
certification]" even if the employer may have intended different requirements than those stated on 
the form. I d. at 834 (emphasis added). 
The terms of the labor certification require a 4-year U.S. bachelor's degree in business administration or 
equivalent field of study, or a foreign equivalent degree. It is noted that, if the labor certification did not 
require at least a 4-year U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree, the petition could not be 
approved. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(i) (the labor certification underlying a petition for a professional 
must require at least a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree). 
The Beneficiary does not possess a 4-year U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary met the minimum educational 
requirements of the offered position set forth on the labor certification by the priority date. 
Although not addressed by the Director in his decision, we also do not find the record to establish that 
the Beneficiary has the 12 months of qualifying experience required by the labor certification. 
Part K. of the labor certification reports the Beneficiary's employment experience as follows: 
• Administrative support, 
present (date oflabor certification's filing); 
• Accounts manager, 
2005;and 
• Accountant, 
Aprill, 1999. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(1)(3) provides: 
(ii) Other documentation-
10 
full-time from October 1, 2010, to the 
full-time from August 1, 1999, to April I, 
part-time from February 1, 1997, to 
(b)(6)
,· ,. 
Matter ofG-&D-, Inc. 
(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. 
Here, the Petitioner has submitted statements from the Beneficiary's prior employers, 
and to establish that the Beneficiary has 
the 12 months of "relating experience" required by the labor certification. 
In the statement from its chairman, reports that the 
Beneficiary worked for his firm as an accounts manager during the period August 1, 1999, to April 
30, 2005, and that she was "[a] confident, professionally sound, hard-working and devoted 
employee." In the second letter, the proprietor of 
states that he employed the Beneficiary as a part -time accountant from February 1, 1997, to 
April 3Q, 1999, and that she was "very confident, active & dedicated in her work." Neither of these 
statements, however, establishes that the Beneficiary has the required experience. 
We note that both statements report different employment end dates than those listed by the 
Beneficiary in the labor certification, raising questions about the reliability of the Beneficiary's 
claimed employment experience. Umesolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the 
reliability and sufficiency ofthe evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Further, the submitted statements do not 
provide a description of the Beneficiary's experience, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A). Therefore, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary has the 12 months 
of employment experience required by the labor certification. For this reason as well, the visa 
petition is not approvable. 
II. CONCLUSION 
In summary, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary possessed 
a U.S. bachelor's degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree from a college or university. The Petitioner also did not establish that 
the Beneficiary met the minimum educational requirements of the offered position set forth on the labor 
certification. Therefore, the Beneficiary does not qualify for classification as a professional under 
section 203(b )(3 )(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa 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; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
I 1 
Matter of G-&D-, Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-&D-, Inc., ID# 41320 (AAO Dec. 9, 2016) 
12