remanded EB-3 Case: Business Advisory

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFF-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 18,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a business advisory firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a managing director. It 
requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference immigration 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1152(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to 
sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that requires at 
least two years of training or experience. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary held a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent degree. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that the labor certification does 
not require the Beneficiary to hold an actual U.S. or foreign baccalaureate degree, but rather the 
equivalent of such a degree based on a combination of lesser credentials. 
Upon de novo review of the record, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter 
to the Director for further action consistent with this decision. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration is generally a three-step process. First, an employer obtains an 
approved ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor 
certification) from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). Next, 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. Finally, if USCIS approves the immigrant visa petitioner, the foreign national applies 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. 
As required by statute, a labor certification, approved by DOL, accompanies the petition. By 
approving the labor certification, DOL certifies that there are insufficient U.S. workers who are able, 
willing, qualified, and available for the offered position. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I) of the Act. The 
DOL also certifies that the employment of a foreign national in the position will not adversely affect the 
.
Matter ofF-, LLC 
wages and working conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) of 
the Act. 
In visa petition proceedings, USCIS determines whether a foreign national meets the job requirements 
specified in the underlying labor certification and the requirements of the requested immigrant 
classification. See Stewart Infra-Red Commissary of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Coomey, 661 F.2d 1 (1st 
Cir. 1981); Tongatapu Woodcraft Haw., Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F. 2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1984); 
Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-13 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 
A petitioner must establish a beneficiary's possession of all the education, training, or experience 
stated on the labor certification by a petition's priority date. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(g)(2), 
103.2(b)(l), (12); see also Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l 
Comm'r 1977); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The priority date of 
a petition is the date that DOL accepts the underlying labor certification for processing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5( d). In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, we must look to the job offer portion of the 
labor certification to determine the requirements for the position. We may not ignore a term of the 
labor certification, nor may we impose additional requirements. Madany at 1 012-13. 
II. ANALYSIS 
At issue in this case is whether the labor certification requires a U.S. baccalaureate (or a foreign 
equivalent degree), or whether it permits a combination of lesser diplomas or degrees equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree. 
The job offer portion of the labor certification, Section H, requires the Beneficiary to have a U.S.­
bachelor's degree in finance, economics, business administration, accounting or a related field, or its 
"foreign educational equivalent." Section H.8 of the labor certification states that an alternate 
combination of education and experience is not acceptable. Section H.14 describes the required 
education for the offered position as follows: "Requires a Bachelor's in finance, economics, 
business administration, accounting or related field (willing to accept a foreign educational 
equivalent)." 
The Beneficiary possesses a three-year bachelor of commerce degree from 
(Australia) and a diploma from in Australia. The Director 
concluded that the combination of the Beneficiary's three-year degree and accounting diploma did 
not provide him with the "foreign educational equivalent" of a U.S. bachelor's degree and therefore 
the Beneficiary did not possess the minimum education required by the terms of the labor 
certification. The Director concluded that the Beneficiary's bachelor's degree from 
was comparable to only three years of university study in the United States and could not 
be combined 
with his membership the which was not a college or 
university, to be the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
2 
.
Matter ofF-, LLC 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in concluding that the labor certification 
requires the Beneficiary to hold an actual U.S. or foreign baccalaureate degree, as Section H.9 of the 
labor certification indicates that it will accept a "foreign educational equivalent." It asserts that in 
requiring the Beneficiary to hold a single baccalaureate degree from a college or university and 
dismissing the diploma issued }?y as it was not degree­
granting institution, the Director impermissibly imposed job requirements beyond those set forth in 
the· labor certification. The Petitioner further argues that if it had filed the labor certification with the 
intent to require a single degree, it would have sought classification of the Beneficiary as a 
professional when it filed the Form I-140 petition, not as a skilled worker. The Petitioner maintains 
that the Beneficiary 's academic background satisfies the requirement for a degree equivalency 
reflected in the labor certification and, on appeal, submits a credentials evaluation in support of this 
claim prepared by Department of Business Management, 
As is stated above, . USCIS is bound by the terms of the labor certification to determine the 
requirements for the position, and we may not ignore a term of the labor certification or impose 
additional requirements. In Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 *5 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 
2006), a case in which the labor certification application specified an educational requirement of four 
years of college and a "B.S. or foreign equivalent." The beneficiary held a three-year degree and 
membership in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Although the court upheld US CIS' 
determinations that the beneficiary's academic qualifications did not allow his classification as an 
advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the Act or as a professional under section 
203(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, it reversed USCIS' decision regarding the beneficiary's eligibility for the 
skilled worker classification under section 203(b )(3)(A)(i) of the Act. The court noted that the word 
'equivalent' in the petitioner's educational requirements was ambiguous and concluded that in the 
context of skilled worker petitions, where there was no statutory educational requirement, deference 
should be given to an employer's intent. !d. at *14. Although we are not bound by the decision in 
Snapnames.com, Inc., we may consider a petitioner's intent when the labor certification contains 
terms that are subject to more than one interpretation. 
In the present matter, the Director found that the Beneficiary did not hold the single academic degree 
from an accredited U.S. university of college, or foreign equivalent degree required by the labor 
certification and denied the visa petition on this basis. However, the Petitioner, as indicated by the 
fact that it checked Part 2.1.f. on the Form I-140, is seeking classification of the Beneficiary as a 
skilled worker, where there is no degree requirement. Section H.l4 of the labor certification states 
that the Petitioner is "willing to accept foreign education equivalent" of a U.S. bachelor's degree, 
which in this context could potentially be interpreted to mean either a single foreign degree that is 
equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree or a combination of lesser diplomas or degrees equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree. 
1 The record also contains an evaluation of the Beneficiary 's academic credentials prepared by of 
that finds the Beneficiary's degree from and his diploma from 
to provide him with the equivalent of a U .S. bachelor 's degree in accounting . 
3 
Matter ofF-, LLC 
Accordingly, we will remand this skilled worker petition to the Director for his consideration of the 
Petitioner's intent regarding the requirements for the degree equivalency stated in Section H.14 of 
the labor certification (i.e., whether the Petitioner intended to accept a degree equivalency based on 
multiple lesser degrees). 2 
Evidence of intent would include documentation concerning the mm1mum requirements of the 
position as that intent was expressed during the labor certification process to the DOL and to 
potentially qualified U.S. workers. This includes copies of the signed recruitment report, the 
prevailing wage determination, all recruitment conducted for the position, the job order, the posted 
notice of the filing of the labor certification, and any other communications with the DOL that may 
be probative of intent, such as correspondences or documents generated in response to an audit. 
The Director should also review this documentation to see if the Petitioner stated that it would also 
accept lesser U.S. educational credentials that are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. If the 
Petitioner would only accept lesser foreign educational credentials that were equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree, then it would be impermissibly favoring foreign workers over U.S. workers in the 
labor certification process. 
This evidence may help establish intent regarding the minimum requirements of the offered position 
and show that U.S. workers without four-year bachelor's degrees were in fact put on notice that they 
were eligible to apply for the position. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We will remand the matter to the Director to determine whether the terms of the labor certification 
permit a combination oflesser diplomas or degrees equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ofF-, LLC, ID# 387264 (AAO July 18, 2017) 
2 
We note that the Petitioner contends that this intent is communicated by its affirmative response to Section H.9 of the 
labor certification, "Is a foreign educational equivalent acceptable?" However, contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, the 
foreign educational equivalent referenced in Section H.9 reflects only a petitioner's willingness to accept a degree 
determined to be the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, which requires the completion of one program of 
study for which a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree is issued by an accredited college or university. 
It does not reflect a willingness to accept a combination of educational programs determined to be the equivalent of a 
U.S. bachelor's degree, which should have been identified in Section H.8 of the labor certification. 
4