dismissed EB-3 Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Departnlent of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
idszlti&ing data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
J 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
AUG 0 "007 
On August 22, 2003, you filed an Immigrant Petition for Alien (Form I-140), seeking the beneficiary's 
services as a Mechanical Engineer ("CAD Application Engineer") pursuant to section 203(b)(3) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(3). You signed Form 1-140, thereby certifLing 
under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are true and correct." The 
Nebraska Service Center director denied the petition and you have appealed this decision to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). 
On June 5, 2007, the AAO issued a Notice of Derogatory Information related to the beneficiary's educational 
background to which the petitioner responded. Following the petitioner's response, the AAO had an 
independent educational evaluation completed. This Notice is to advise the petitioner of said results, and 
allow the petitioner an opportunity to address the specific findings of the evaluation. 
The evaluation was completed and prepared by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and 
Admissions Officers ("AACRAO") on July 31, 2007, a copy of which is enclosed. Specifically, the 
evaluation provides: 
-, 
The applicant completed the Secondary School Certificate (SSC) which represents 10 years 
of primary/secondary schooling and would not permit holders of the SSC to be admitted to 
university level study in India. 
Then in 1990 the applicant was awarded the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from the 
State Board of Technical Education and Training, AP Hyderabad (India). Admission to the 
diploma programs requires only loth grade education. The diploma represents one year of 
undergraduate study in engineering technology course work completed during the third and 
final year of study in the diploma program. (Holders of the Diploma in Mechanical 
Engineering would generally be placed in the second year of the four year Bachelor of 
Engineering - Mechanical Engineering program in recognized Indian universities.) 
Page 2 
The applicant also passed Section A examinations through the Institution of Engineers 
(India); however, Section B was not passed. The Institution of Engineers (India) offers 
professional training and examinations in the various branches of engineering technology. 
Successful passing of both sections of the examinations and achievement of Associateship 
status can give access in India to master's degrees studies in engineering technology, 
according to the placement recommendations in India - Special Report. Further in the U.S. 
context, holders of this credential "may be considered for graduate admission in a closely 
related field if the specialized nature of the program followed is appropriate preparation." 
Had the applicant passed both sections of the examinations and also elevated to 
"Associateship" member status, the IEI Associateship would be regarded as comparable with 
a bachelor's degree in engineering in India for employment purposes. As the applicant did 
not pass Section B of the examinations, no academic credit could be recommended for 
passing only Section A of the examinations. 
Additionally, the applicant completed a one-year Post-Diploma course in Tool Design 
through the Central Institute of Tool Design (Ministry of Industry, India). Such work 
represents a professional qualification bearing no academic credit. 
In summary, the applicant's educational qualifications compare to one year of engineering 
technology studies at the undergraduate level in the U.S. 
Willful misrepresentation of a material fact in these proceedings may render the beneficiary inadmissible to 
the United States, unless the petitioner is able to overcome the findings of the AACRAO educational 
evaluation. See INA Section 2 12(a)(6)(c), [8 U.S.C. 1 1821, regarding misrepresentation, "(i) in general - any 
alien, who by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks (or has sought to procure, or who has 
procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission to the United States or other benefit provided under the 
Act is inadmissible." 
A material issue in this case is whether the beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position through meeting the education requirements of the position offered. The job offered requires a four- 
year bachelor's degree. As the beneficiary had only a three-year technical degree ("diploma") obtained 
following completion of only ten years of primary and secondary school, which is equivalent to one year of 
U.S. undergraduate studies, the beneficiary in listing on Form ETA 750B that he had a four-year Bachelor's 
degree,' and signing that form under penalty of perjury, constitutes an act of willful misrepresentation. The 
listing of a four-year Bachelor's degree misrepresented the beneficiary's actual qualifications in a willful 
effort to procure a benefit ultimately leading to permanent residence under the Act. See Kungys v. US., 485 
U.S. 759 (1988), ("materiality is a legal question of whether "misrepresentation or concealment was 
predictably capable of affecting, i.e., had a natural tendency to affect the official decision.") Here, the 
concealment of the beneficiary's true equivalence in education is a willful misrepresentation of the U.S. 
educational equivalency of the beneficiary's qualifications that adversely impacted DOL's adjudication of the 
ETA 750 and CIS'S immigrant petition analysis. 
' The evaluation provides that the beneficiary studied from 1986 to 1989, and that the diploma was awarded 
on February 28, 1990. The beneficiary provided a statement that he took his third year exams in January and 
February 1990. 
Furthermore, a finding of misrepresentation may lead to invalidation of the Form ETA 750. See 20 C.F.R. 5 
656.3 1 (d) regarding labor certification applications involving fraud or willful misrepresentation: 
Finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation. If as referenced in Sec. 656.30(d), a court, the 
DHS or the Department of State determines there was fraud or willful misrepresentation 
involving a labor certification application, the application will be considered to be 
invalidated, processing is terminated, a notice of the termination and the reason therefore is 
sent by the Certifying Officer to the employer, attorney/agent as appropriate. 
Further, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's evidence may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in 
fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 59 1-592 (BIA 1988). 
Based in part upon this information, the AAO intends to dismiss your appeal, invalidate the labor certification, 
and enter a determination of willful misrepresentation. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(16)(i), we hereby notifjr 
you of this derogatory information and provide you with an opportunity to respond before we render our final 
decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i) does not specify the amount of time afforded to an applicant or 
petitioner to respond to derogatory evidence. We consider thirty (30) days to be ample time for this purpose. 
Therefore, you are hereby afforded 30 days from the date of this letter in which to respond to this notice. If you 
choose to respond, please submit your response to the address shown on the first page of this letter. 
U 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office