dismissed EB-3 Case: Networking Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 7, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of networking services and solutions, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
Project Manager. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third 
preference immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 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, Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director determined that the record 
did not establish that the Beneficiary met the requirements of the offered position of Project 
Manager, as set forth in the labor certification. He found that while the Petitioner had filed the visa 
petition for a skilled worker, a classification requiring only two years of training or experience, it 
was still required to demonstrate that the Beneficiary met the minimum level of education required 
by the labor certification, a U.S. Bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner contends that the evidence of record does 
establish that the Beneficiary holds the equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree and is, therefore, 
eligible for classification as a skilled worker since section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act does not require 
a single, four-year academic degree. It asserts that its minimum educational requirements for the 
offered position, as stated in the labor certification, allow for a degree equivalency. Upon de novo 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
As indicated above, the Petitioner filed the visa petition seeking classification of the Beneficiary as a 
skilled worker pursuant to section 203(b )(3)(A)(i) of the Act. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(2) provides the following definition of skilled worker: 
Skilled worker means an alien who is capable, at the time of petitioning for this 
classification of performing skilled labor (requiring at least two years training or 
experience), not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are 
not available in the United States. Relevant post-secondary education may be 
considered as training for the purposes of this provision. 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
The Director, however, found that the labor certification required the Beneficiary to hold an 
advanced degree, which is defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) as: 
[A]ny United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree 
is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate 
or a foreign equivalent degree 
He denied the petition on June 23,2015, concluding that the evidence of record did not establish that 
the Beneficiary held the baccalaureate degree required by the labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in denying the visa petition as the labor 
certification indicates that the educational requirements of the offered position may be met either by 
a U.S. Bachelor's 
degree or a "foreign degree equivalent." It asserts that the Beneficiary's associate 
membership in which has been determined by the 
Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE) to be the educational equivalent of a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree, satisfies the degree requirement found in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(C). Alternatively, the Petitioner maintains that, if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) does not find the Beneficiary to hold the foreign equivalent degree to a single­
source, four-year U.S. Bachelor's degree, the Beneficiary still has the education stipulated by the 
labor certification as it requires only that the Beneficiary have a foreign degree equivalent. This 
degree equivalency, the Petitioner asserts, is satisfied by the Beneficiary's successful completion of 
Parts A and B of the examination in electronics and communication, and provides him with a 
combination of degrees or credentials sufficient to meet the baccalaureate degree requirement in 
skilled worker cases, as indicated by the court in Snapnames. com, Inc. v. Chertoff (Snapnames. com, 
Inc.), 2006 WL 3491005 *5 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006). 
In support of the appeal, the Petitioner submits the following evidence: copies of the decisions in 
Hoosier Care, Inc. v. Chertoff (Hoosier Care), 482 F3d 987 (7th Cir. 2007); Grace Korean United 
Methodist Church v. Michael Chertoff (Grace Korean United Methodist Church), 437 F. Supp. 2d 
1174 (D. Or. 2005); and Snapnames.com , Inc.; the labor cetiification the Petitioner filed on behalf of 
the Beneficiary on December 16, 201 0; the Petitioner's posting notice and online advertisement for 
the offered position ; an April 28, 2015, evaluation of the Beneficiary 's associate membership in the 
prepared by the 
evaluation of the credential of associate membership in the found in the Electronic Database for 
Global Education (EDGE); selected pages from "Mapping the World of Education, the Comparative 
Database System (CDS), Volume One, issued by the U.S. Department of Education and the National 
Science Foundation; materials relating to the Government of India's decision to recognize 15 
courses of the Section A and B Examination conducted by the as being equivalent to a degree "in 
the appropriate branch of engineering of the Recognized Universities of India;" and materials 
indicating that the successful completion of Sections A and B of the examination is comparable 
to an Indian baccalaureate degree, including a February 27, 1978, letter signed by the Under 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
Secretary, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC); a February 17, 1978, UPSC press note; and 
an August 16, 1978, letter issued by the Indian Ministry of Education & Social Welfare. The 
Petitioner has also provided a copy of a September 22, 1978, letter from the 
. which relates to the eligibility of graduates admitted to postgraduate courses 
in engineer and technology at an Indian university of institution for junior fellowships. 
I. ROLES OF DOL AND USCIS IN EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that DOL decides "the test of the labor market, including the 
requirements for the [offered] position" and determines the kind of training required to classify an 
alien as a skilled worker under section 203(b )(3) of the Act, following its consideration of the 
materials submitted by a U.S. employer. It contends that it is the responsibility of USCIS to 
determine if the beneficiary has the credentials required for the employment. This delineation of 
responsibilities, it asserts, has been established by the court in Hoosier Care, which it describes as a 
precedent decision. 
We note, however, that Hoosier Care stands for the limited interpretation of what constitutes 
"relevant" post-secondary education under the skilled worker regulation and has no applicability to 
the facts of the current case. Moreover, even if applicable here, the holdings of a circuit court in 
cases arising within the jurisdiction of that circuit are not binding throughout the United States. 
Matter of Anselmo, 20 I&N Dec. 25, 31 (BIA 1989); cf Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 
(BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a circuit court'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 Anselmo, at 31. Accordingly, the decision in Hoosier Care, which was issued by 
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, is not binding on us in the present case, which arises within 
the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 
Nevertheless, in light of the Petitioner's assertions, we will discuss the respective roles of DOL and 
USCIS in the employment-based immigrant visa process. As noted above, the ETA Form 9089 in this 
matter is certified by DOL. 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 determined 
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. 
3 
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
It is significant that none of the above inquiries assigned to DOL or the regulations implementing these 
duties under 20 C.P.R. § 656, involve a determination as to whether the position and the beneficiary are 
qualified for a specific immigrant classification. This fact has not gone unnoticed by federal circuit 
courts: 
There is no doubt that the authority to make preference classification 
decisions rests with INS [now USCIS]. The language of section 204 cannot be read 
otherwise. See Castaneda-Gonzalez v. INS, 564 F.2d 417,429 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In 
turn, DOL has the authority to make the two determinations listed in section 
212(a)(14).1 Id. at 423. The necessary result ofthese 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. 
K.R.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) of the [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). 
4 
Matter ofC-S-, 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 qualified (or not qual?fied) to perform the duties of that 
job. 
(Emphasis added.) !d. at 1009. The Ninth Circuit, citing KR.K Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006, revisited 
this issue, stating: 
[T]he 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)(14), 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 KR.K Irvine, Inc. v. Landon, 699 F.2d 1006, 
1008 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 DOL's responsibility to determine whether there are qualified U.S. workers available 
to perform the duties of an offered position, and whether the employment of a beneficiary will 
adversely affect similarly employed U.S. workers. It is the responsibility ofUSCIS to determine if a 
beneficiary qualifies for the offered position, and whether an offered position and a beneficiary are 
eligible for the requested immigrant visa classification. 
II. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OFFERED POSITION 
In determining the requirements for an offered position, US CIS looks to the job offer portion of the 
labor certification. We may not ignore a term of the labor certification, nor impose additional 
requirements. See Madany, 696 F.2d at 1008; KR.K Irvine, Inc., 699 F.2d at 1006; Stewart Infra­
Red Commissary of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1981). Instead, USCIS must 
examine "the language of the labor certification job requirements" in order to determine what the 
petitioner must demonstrate to establish the beneficiary as qualified for the position. Madany, at 
1015. We interpret 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). Our interpretation of the job's requirements 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. !d. at 834 
(emphasis added). 
5 
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
The requirements for the offered position are found in Part H. of the labor certification and are as 
follows: 
H.4. 
H.4-B. 
H.5. 
H.6. 
H.6-A. 
H.7. 
H.7-A. 
H.8. 
H.9. 
H.IO. 
H. lO-A. 
H. lO-B. 
H.14. 
Education: Bachelor's. 
Major field of study: Electronic/Electrical/Computer Engineering, Computer 
Science or related field. 
Training: None required. 
Experience in the job offered: Required. 
Length of required experience: 96 months. 
Alternate field of study: Accepted. 
Major alternate field of study: Electronic/Electrical/Computer Engineering, 
Computer Science or related field. 
Alternate combination of education and experience: None accepted. 
Foreign educational equivalent: Accepted. 
Experience in an alternate occupation: Accepted. 
Length of experience in alternate occupation: 96 months. 
Title of acceptable alternate occupation: Software Consultant, 
Delivery/Program/Systems Manager, or related occupation. 
Specific skills or other requirements: Operations management; PMP 
certification; MS Project; Enterprise class Business Intelligence 
system; Relational database; Excel Macro; and Project Management, 
including global project management and managing multiple projects. 
Experience required in H.6A or H. I OA must be post-baccalaureate and 
progressive in nature. 
Based on the above, we find the offered position to require a U.S. Bachelor's degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree in Electronic, Electrical, or Computer Engineering; Computer Science or a related 
field; and eight years of experience as a Project Manager, Software Consultant, Delivery, Program, 
or Systems Manager or a related occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that its acceptance of a foreign equivalent degree in Part H.9. of 
the labor certification reflects its willingness to accept a degree equivalency. As proof, it submits the 
posting notice and online advertisement for the offered position, both of which state the position's 
educational requirement as a "Bachelor's or foreign degree equivalent." We do not, however, find 
the Petitioner's claim or submitted evidence to be persuasive. 
"Foreign educational equivalent" as it appears in Part H.9. of the labor certification, relates to a 
petitioner's willingness to accept an equivalent degree to a U.S. Bachelor's degree, where that 
degree is based on the completion of one program of study and has been issued by a college or 
university. It does not demonstrate a petitioner's willingness to accept a degree equivalency. A 
petitioner's acceptance of a degree equivalency is, instead, to be reflected in Part H.8. of the labor 
certification, which asks the employer filing the labor certification to indicate whether it will accept 
an alternate combination of education and experience. 
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
In the present case, Part H.8. of the labor certification indicates that the Petitioner will not accept an 
alternate combination of education and experience as qualifying the Beneficiary for the offered 
position. We further note that Part H.14. of the labor certification, which allows an employer to list 
specific skills or "other requirements" for an offered position, contains no language that indicates the 
Petitioner would consider a job candidate with educational credentials equivalent to a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree. Accordingly, a reading of the labor certification finds that the Petitioner's 
acceptance of a foreign educational equivalent in Part H.9. of the labor certification at the time it 
filed the labor certification indicated its willingness to accept a foreign equivalent degree to a single­
source, four-year U.S. baccalaureate degree issued by a U.S. college or university, not a foreign 
degree equivalency.2 
The submitted posting notice and online advertisement are also insufficient proof of the Petitioner's 
willingness to accept a degree equivalency, although they state that the Petitioner will accept a 
"foreign degree equivalent." 
With regard to equivalent degrees or alternative work experience, DOL has provided the following 
field guidance to employers: "When an equivalent degree or alternative work experience is 
acceptable, the employer must specifically state on the ETA 750, Part A as well as throughout all 
phases of recruitment exactly what will be considered equivalent or alternative in order to qualify for 
the job." See Memorandum from Anna C. Hall, Acting Regional Administrator, Employment & 
Training Administration, DOL, to SESA and JTPA Administrators., Employment & Training 
Administration, DOL, Interpretation of "Equivalent Degree," (June 13, 1994). Labor's certification 
of job requirements stating that "a certain amount and kind of experience is the equivalent of a 
college degree does in no way bind [USCIS] to accept the employer's definition" and SESAs should 
"request the employer provide the specifics of what is meant when the word 'equivalent' is used." 
See Letter from Paul R. Nelson, Certifying Officer, Employment & Training Administration, DOL, 
to Lynda Won-Chung, Esq., Jackson & Hertogs (March 9, 1993). Labor has also stated that "[w]hen 
the term equivalent is used in conjunction with a degree, we understand [it] to mean the employer is 
willing to accept an equivalent foreign degree." See Letter from Paul R. Nelson, Certifying Officer, 
Employment & Training Administration, DOL, to Joseph Thomas, U.S. Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (October 27, 1992). To our knowledge, DOL has not rescinded these field 
guidance memoranda. 
In the present case, neither the submitted posting notice nor the online advertisement for the offered 
position provide potential job applicants with an explanation of what will be considered the foreign 
degree equivalent of a baccalaureate degree, pursuant to the above DOL guidance. Accordingly, we 
2 We reach this same conclusion with regard to the Petitioner's affirmative response to the question in Part I.a.l of the 
labor certification, which asks: "Is this application for a professional occupation ... ? Professional occupations are 
those for which a bachelor's degree (or equivalent) is normally required." However, the requirements for a job 
opportunity are set forth in Part H. of the labor certification, not in Part I. Accordingly, the fact that the Petitioner 
answered yes to the question in Part I.a.l. of the labor certification is insufficient to demonstrate its intent to accept a 
degree equivalency in this matter. 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
do not find them sufficient to establish that the Petitioner's minimum educational requirement for the 
offered position at the time it filed the labor certification was a degree equivalency. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also references the decision in Snapnames. com, Inc. as a basis for finding the 
Beneficiary to qualify for the offered position based on a degree equivalency. 
In Snapnames.com , Inc., the labor certification application specified an educational requirement of 
four years of college and a 'B.S. or foreign equivalent. ' The beneficiary had a three-year degree and 
membership in the that users had found did not 
qualify the beneficiary for either the EB-2 (advanced degree professional) or the EB-3 (both skilled 
worker and professional) classification (due to the specific job requirements on the labor 
certification). The court upheld USeiS' determinations on EB-2 and EB-3 as a professional, but 
reversed us on the EB-3 skilled worker classification. 
In reaching its conclusions, the court determined that 'B.S. or foreign equivalent' relates solely to the 
beneficiary's educational background, precluding consideration of the beneficiary 's combined 
education and work experience. !d. at * 11-13. Additionally, the court found that in professional and 
advanced degree professional cases, where a beneficiary is statutorily required to hold a bachelor's 
degree, that users had properly found a single degree or its equivalent to be required. !d. at * 17, 
19. However, it also concluded that the word 'equivalent' in the employer's educational requirements 
was ambiguous and that in the context of skilled worker petitions (where there was no statutory 
educational requirement), deference must be given to the employer's intent. !d. at *14. The court 
recognized that even though a labor certification may be prepared with the beneficiary in mind, users 
has an independent role in determining whether he or she meets the labor certification requirements. !d. 
at *7. It concluded that where the plain language of those requirements does not support a petitioner's 
asserted intent, users "does not err in applying the requirements as written." !d. 
While we are not bound by the holdings in Snapnames.com, Inc. , we take note of the court' s 
reasoning with regard to the deference to be paid to a petitioner's intentions when considering 
educational equivalences in skilled worker petitions. However, as just noted, the plain language of 
the labor certification clearly requires the Beneficiary to hold a U.S. Bachelor's degree or foreign 
equivalent degree in Electronic, Electrical or Computer Engineering; Computer Science; or a related 
field, and states that the Petitioner will accept no alternate combination of education and experience. 
Further, although the posting notice and online advertisement submitted by the Petitioner reflect that 
a job applicant may qualify for the offered position with a "Bachelor's or foreign degree equivalent," 
they offer no specific explanation as to what would be considered an equivalency and, therefore, are 
insufficient proof of the Petitioner's willingness to accept a degree equivalency. Moreover, the labor 
certification in this matter originally supported a Form I-140 in which the Petitioner petitioned for 
the Beneficiary as an advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, a 
classification requiring the Beneficiary to hold a single-source, four-year degree (a requirement that 
the court in Snapnames . com, Inc. found reasonable) . In light of the statutory degree requirement for 
the classification initially sought by the Petitioner, we find it unlikely that its minimum educational 
requirement at the time it filed the labor certification would have been other than a U.S. 
baccalaureate or foreign equivalent degree. 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
For the reasons discussed, we find the labor certification in the present case to require the 
Beneficiary to hold a U.S. Bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree, i.e., a single-source, 
four-year foreign degree issued by a college or university. 
III. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS- EDUCATION 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B) a beneficiary must meet the educational, 
training or experience, and 
any other requirements of the individual labor certification. These 
requirements must be met as of the petition's priority date. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N 
158 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). As previously indicated, the petition's priority date is June 5, 
2014. 
The record contains copies of the Beneficiary's 1989 Diploma in Business Management from the 
India; a certificate reflecting his 
election as an Associate Member of the on September 14, 1989, following his successful 
completion of Sections A and B of its examinations m electronics and communications; and 
certificates that indicate he was awarded a diploma in in Oracle V. 7 in September 199 5 by 
the and the credential of Project 
Management Professional by the on May 24, 2004. Additionally, the 
Petitioner submits copies of EDGE's credentials evaluation of an associate membership in the 
selected pages from "Mapping the World of Education, the Comparative Database System (CDS), 
Volume One, issued by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation; and 
the April28, 2015, credentials evaluation prepared by 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's associate membership in the establishes 
that he has the equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor of Science degree in Electronic Engineering from an 
accredited college or university in the United States.3 It maintains that EDGE, which USCIS uses in 
assessing foreign educational credentials, has already certified an associate membership in the as 
a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. Bachelor's degree. It further asserts that, even if the 
Beneficiary is not found to have a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. Bachelor's degree, he is 
eligible for consideration under the skilled worker category, which has no statutory degree 
requirement and where an evaluation demonstrating a combination of degrees would qualify the 
Beneficiary for the offered position, as indicated by the court in Snapnames. com, Inc. 
However, while no degree is required for classification as a skilled worker, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(3)(3)(B) requires that a petition for a skilled worker be accompanied by evidence that 
demonstrates that the beneficiary "meets the education, training or experience, and 
any other 
requirements of the individual labor certification." Here, as previously discussed, the labor certification 
3 However, in the brief it submits on appeal, the Petitioner also states that it "understand[s] that USCIS cannot deem [the 
Beneficiary] as qualifying for the EB2 category with his education background from an institution that doesn't clearly 
confer bachelor's degrees." 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
requires the Beneficiary to hold a single-source, four-year U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree. Therefore, to establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for the offered position, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate that he holds the foreign equivalent degree of a U.S. Bachelor's degree 
in Electronic, Electrical, or Computer Engineering; Computer Science; or a related field 
To establish that the Beneficiary holds the required foreign equivalent degree, the Petitioner submits 
the April 28, 2015, credentials evaluation prepared by 
who notes that his assessment is based solely on the academic studies completed by the Beneficiary 
at the finds the Beneficiary to have completed studies and examinations comparable in nature 
and duration to the studies and examinations required by Bachelor's programs in Electronic 
Engineering at U.S. colleges and universities. He also concludes that the , although "not a 
university in a traditional sense," is a degree-granting institution, as its "clearly defined subjects of 
study and examinations encompassed in the academic program ... irrefutably indicate that the 
academic programs offered ... are 'programs of study' requiring the completion of academic studies 
and examinations at a bachelor's level." Accordingly, he maintains that the Associate Member 
"degree" awarded by the qualifies as an academic degree "based on the fact that it is a title 
awarded by an educational institution, specialized in engineering, 
once a student completes the four­
year bachelor's-level program of academic study (and examinations) offered by said institution." 
He, therefore, contends that the Beneficiary's associate membership in the is a single-source 
foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. Bachelor of Science Degree in Electronic Engineering and that 
this conclusion is in agreement with the information provided by the EDGE database and the 
previously noted "Mapping the World of Education: Comparative Database System," submitted by 
the Petitioner on appeal. 
We note that the Petitioner has previously submitted a March 11, 2014, evaluation of the 
Beneficiary's academic credentials prepared by as 
well as a March 13, 2014, analysis authored by These 
evaluations, like that prepared by conclude that the Beneficiary's Associate 
Membership in the provides him with a single-source foreign equivalent degree to a four-year 
U.S. Bachelor of Science in Electronic Engineering and, like , reference the 
information provided by EDGE and "Mapping the World of Education: Comparative Database 
System." 
However, while we note the submitted evaluations, we do not find them to establish that the 
Beneficiary holds the foreign equivalent degree required by the labor certification. 
Although EDGE5 has found an associate membership in the to "represent the attainment of a 
level of education comparable to a bachelor[']s degree in the United States," this degree equivalency 
4 The record also contains a May 20, 2011, credentials evaluation prepared by and an April 7, 2010 
assessment written by which were submitted in support of the visa 
petition filed by the Petitioner on April 7, 2011. 
5 We consider EDGE, created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO), to be a reliable, peer-reviewed source of information about foreign credentials equivalencies. According to 
its website, AACRAO is "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more than 11,000 higher education 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
does not satisfy the requirements of the labor certification, which, as discussed above, stipulate that 
the Beneficiary hold a U.S. Bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree in Electronic, 
Electrical, or Computer Engineering; Computer Science; or a related field. We also do not find the 
April 28, 2015, evaluation prepared by Professor Appel or those written by or 
which also rely, in part, on the EDGE equivalency finding, to establish the Beneficiary's 
associate membership as a foreign equivalent degree. Credentials evaluations are used by USCIS as 
advisory opinions only. Where an evaluation is not in accord with previous equivalencies or is in 
any way questionable, it may be discounted or given less weight. Matter of Sea, Inc. 19 I&N Dec. 
817 (Comm'r 1988). 
The is a professional engineering association, not an academic institution that can confer an 
actual degree. See Snapnames.com, Inc., at *11 (finding USCIS was justified in concluding that 
membership in the was not a college or university "degree" 
for purposes of classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree). Although 
we do not question the quality of the education received by the Beneficiary at the and acknowledge 
that he has attained a level of education equivalent to a U.S. Bachelor's degree, the is not a degree-
granting academic institution. Therefore, the associate membership awarded the Beneficiary is not the 
foreign equivalent degree required by the labor certification. 
As the record does not establish that the Beneficiary holds the U.S. Bachelor's degree or foreign 
equivalent degree required by the labor certification, we will dismiss the appeal. 
IV. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS -EXPERIENCE 
Beyond the decision of the Director, we do not find the record to establish that the Beneficiary has 
the employment experience required by the labor certification. 
The labor certification in the present case requires the Beneficiary to have 96 months (eight years) of 
experience as a Project Manager; a Software Consultant; a Delivery/Program/Systems Manager; or a 
in a related occupation. Part K. of the labor certification lists the Beneficiary's employment 
experience, as follows: 
• Project Manager, 
certification; 
• Program 
Manager, 
• Software Consultant, 
• Delivery Manager, 
from November 6, 2013, until the filing of labor 
from January 24, 2007, until November 5, 2013; 
from May 6, 2005, until January 23, 2007; 
from August 1, 2003, until March 30, 2005; 
admissions and registration professionals who represent more than 2,600 institutions and agencies in the United States 
and in over 40 countries around the world." See http://www.aacrao.org/About-AACRAO.aspx. Its mission "is to serve 
and advance higher education by providing leadership in academic and enrollment services." !d. EDGE is "a web-based 
resource for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials." See http://edge.aacrao.org/info.php. 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
• Software Consultant, 
30, 2002; 
• Project Manager, 
• Systems Manager, 
, from October 1, 2000, until May 
from February 1, 1998, until September 1, 2000; and 
from May 1, 1995, until January 30, 1998. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) states the following regarding the evidence required to 
establish employment experience : 
[E]vidence relating to qualifying experience or trammg shall be in the form of 
letter(s) from current or former employer(s) or trainer(s) and shall include the name, 
address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by 
the alien or of the training received. If such evidence is unavailable, other 
documentation relating to the alien's experience or training will be considered. 
To demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualifying employment experience, the Petitioner has submitted 
statements from: 
• Director, Business Development Strategic Partnerships, 
who states that the Beneficiary was employed as a full-time Project Manager during the 
period May 2005 to January 2007. During this time, reports that the Beneficiary 
worked on class business intelligence and projects, effectively using the MS 
Project tool for managing these projects; predictive customer intelligence; and business 
metrics and reporting, where he used Excel macro extensively to automate reporting 
requirements. also indicates that the Beneficiary worked with relational databases, 
such as Oracle and MS SQL. 
• Vice President, who states 
that the 
Beneficiary was employed by his company from August 2003 to March 2005, and that he 
managed related projects; participated in project bids/proposals, estimation and 
presentation to prospective clients; and worked closely with sales teams in Asia, the Pacific 
and Europe. also states that the Beneficiary "spearheaded" training in 
and SAS; was good in Operation Management and mentoring; was exceptional in 
adhering to the CMM Level 5 quality process; and that some of his work was of value to 
other projects within states that, at the time of his departure, 
the Beneficiary 's title was Manager-Projects. 
• Managing Director, states that 
the Beneficiary worked for his company as a Project Manager from July 2002 to April 2003, 
and was instrumental in getting and executing an project. also reports 
that during his tenure, the Beneficiary made suggestions on the product developed on 
the NET framework. 
• . Manager Corporate Finance, who reports that the Beneficiary 
was employed as a Senior Professional Services Consultant from October 2000 to May 2002, 
states that the Beneficiary "spearheaded" a number of different projects, including securing 
and implementing a project for secunng a tender for _ 
and completing a project for in "record time." A supporting 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
September 26, 2002, letter from notes the Beneficiary's "expert 
knowledge" of the product and his contribution to its own project. 
• Director, who states that the 
Beneficiary worked for his company as a Project Manager from February 1998 until 
September 2000, and that his work was excellent. 
• who indicates that the Beneficiary worked for his 
company as a Manager (Systems) from May 1995 to January 1998 and that, during that time, 
he led a team of software development and customer support engineers. 
• Manager, Personnel and Administration, 
who reports that the Beneficiary was employed by his company as a 
consultant from March 1991 to March 1995, working on overseas projects for its clients; and 
on materials consultancy services, including inventory policies, spares review, and materials 
codification on Oracle/Unix 
platforms. 
The above statements do not, however, establish that the Beneficiary has the experience required by 
the labor certification. 
We note that, with the exception of the statement from none of the other letters relating 
to the Beneficiary's employment experience indicate that he was employed on a full-time basis and, 
therefore, do not establish that he has the eight years of employment required by the labor 
certification. Further, the job titles claimed by the Beneficiary for his employment with 
and : are inconsistent with those indicated in the relating experience letters. 
Although the Beneficiary states on the labor certification that he was employed by as a 
the statement from indicates that he worked for the company as a 
Project Manager. The statement from at indicates that at the time of 
his departure, the Beneficiary was employed by the company as a Manager-Projects; the 
Beneficiary, however, states in the labor certification that he worked for as a Delivery 
Manager during his employment. Further, the Beneficiary's claim that he was a Software Consultant 
at is not supported by the statement from who reports that the 
Beneficiary worked for the company as a Senior Professional Services Consultant. The record 
provides no explanation for the discrepancies in the Beneficiary's job titles. Doubt cast on any aspect 
of a petitioner's proof may 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, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
We also find that the majority of the submitted statements either do not provide a description of the 
actual duties perfmmed by the Beneficiary or describe duties that appear inconsistent with the duties 
listed by the Beneficiary in the labor certification. As noted above, the statement provided by 
at indicates only that the Beneficiary's work for his company was 
excellent; that signed by at . Computers notes that the Beneficiary led a team of 
software development and customer support engineers, but offers no description of the duties he 
performed as team leader. The statements relating to the Beneficiary's employment with 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-S-, Inc. 
and indicate duties that do not appear to be those listed by the 
Beneficiary in describing his employment at these companies.6 We also note that the statement from 
relates to employment not claimed by the Beneficiary on the 
labor certification. Further, although the statement from states that the Beneficiary 
was employed as a Project Manager from July 2002 to April 2003, the Beneficiary claimed on the 
labor certification to have been unemployed from May 31, 2002, until July 31, 2003. Doubt cast on 
any aspect of a petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. !d. at 591-92. 
In light of the inconsistencies in the evidence relating to the Beneficiary's employment experience, 
we do not find the record to establish that he has the eight years of experience required by the labor 
certification. For this reason as well, we will dismiss the appeal. 
V. CONCLUSION 
A petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of a petition at the time of filing. Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm'r 1971). In the present case, the record does not establish that 
the Beneficiary has the education or employment experience required by the labor certification. 
Therefore, we will affirm the Director's denial ofthe visa petition for the above stated reasons, with 
each considered as an independent and alternative basis for the denial of the petition. 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-S-, Inc., ID# 15853 (AAO Mar. 7, 2016) 
6 Although the Beneficiary's employment with is not listed on the labor certification filed in this matter, it 
was listed in the ETA Form 9089 that was filed by the Petitioner on December 16, 20 I 0. 
14