remanded EB-3 Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I-T-N.A. INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 26,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a senior 
technical lead. 1 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 of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established that the Beneficiary possesses the required experience for the p.roffered job. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary meets the 
minimum requirements for the proffered position. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the decision of the Director and remand the matter for • further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
A. Employment-Based Immigration· 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer must 
obtain an approved ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor 
certification), from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).2 See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). 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 and that 
employing a foreign national in the position will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions 
1 
The Petitioner filed another Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, for the Beneficiary on December 22, 
2016, in a different employment-based immigrant visa classification. That petition was approved. 
2 
The date the labor certification is filed, in cases such as this one, is called the "priority date." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
In this case, the priority date is May 13, 2016. Therefore, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements 
for the petition have been satisfied from May 13, 2016, and continuing through the present. 
.
Matter of I-T-N A. Inc. 
of domestic workers similarly employed. See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II) of the Act. Second, the 
employer may file an immigrant visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Third, if USCIS approves the petition, the 
foreign national may apply for an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, adjustment of status in the 
United States. See section 245 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
B. Beneficiary's Experience 
The beneficiary must meet all of the requirements of the offered position set forth on the labor 
certification by the priority date of the petition. In this case, the labor certification states the 
minimum requirements for the offered position are a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or 
related degree,3 plus five years of experience in the proffered job or a related occupation. The labor 
certification also lists the following additional requirements at Part H.14.: "Minimum 4 years 
experience managing IT projects; 3 years as PRPC Systems Architect; 3 years experience with 
JAV A/J2EE, IBM WebSphere, Oracle and DB2 PRPC Certified Senior System Architect v5.5 PRPC 
Certified System Architect v5 Travel and/or relocation to various unanticipated worksites is 
required." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3) provides: 
(ii) Other documentation-
(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. 
The labor certification lists the following experience for the Beneficiary: 
• Full-time employment with the Petitioner as a senior technical lead from November 3, 2014, to 
May 13, 2016; 
• Full-time employment with in India, as a senior technical lead 
from August 12,2013, to November 2, 2014; 
• Full-time employment with in India, as an assistant consultant 
from August 13, 2012, to August 9, 2013; 
• Full-time employment with in Michigan, as an 
applications engineer from October 1, 2009, to November 22, 2011; and 
• Full-time employment with in India, as a band T sub band T 
from August 14, 2006, to October 1, 2009. 
3 
The Beneficiary has the required foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor of electrical engineering degree. 
2 
.
Matter of I-T-N A. Inc. 
The Petitioner submitted several experience certificates and letters with the petition and in response to 
the Director's 'request for evidence (RFE). In his decision, the Director determined that the certificates 
and letters were insufficient to establish the Beneficiary's qualifications for the proffered position. On 
appeal, the Petitioner submits the following additional letters verifying the Beneficiary's experience: 
• Letter from in India, stating that the Beneficiary was employed 
as a senior technical lead from August 12, 2013, to November 2, 2014. The letter verifies the 
Beneficiary's 447 days of qualifying experience, including designing and developing 
applications as a PRPC systems architect and using the following technologies: JA V A/J2EE, 
IBM WebSphere, Oracle, and DB2. 
• Letter from in India, stating that the Beneficiary worked full-
time from August 13, 2012, to August 9, 2013, and that his title was assistant consultant when 
he left the organization. The letter verifies the Beneficiary's 361 days of qualifying experience, 
including management of IT projects, designing screen flows using PRPC, and using the 
following technologies: PRPC, JAVA/J2EE, IBM WebSphere, JSP, Oracle, and DB2. 
• Letter from stating that the Beneficiary was employed as an 
applications engineer from October 6, 2009, to November 18, 2011.4 The letter verifies the 
Beneficiary's 773 days of qualifying experience, including designing and developing 
applications using PRPC, JAV AIJ2EE, IBM WebSphere, and DB2. 
• Letter dated November 23, 2016, from (formerly 
in India, stating that the Beneficiary was employed full-time as a module lead' from 
August 14, :i006, to October 1, 2009. The letter verifies the Beneficiary's 1144 days of 
qualifying experience, including management of IT projects, designing screen flows using 
PRPC, and using the following technologies: PRPC, JAVA/J2EE, EJB, IBM WebSphere 
Application Server, Oracle, and DB2: 
• Letter from in India stating that the Beneficiary was employed full-time as a 
software engineer-IT from February 1, 2001, to February 1, 2004. However, the Beneficiary's 
employment with was not listed on the labor certification.6 Therefore, we decline to 
accept the letter as verification of the Beneficiary's experience. 
The evidence submitted with the petition, in response to the RFE, and on appeal establishes that the 
Beneficiary possesses the required experience for the proffered job. We will therefore withdraw the 
decision of the Director and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing 
opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
4 The letter verifies nine less d~ys of employment than that listed on the labor certification, so we have credited only the 
days verified in the letter. 
5 The Petitioner states on appeal that the position title of module lead at aligns with the position of"Band-
T -I" when the company was operating as The job duties I isted on the labor certification for 
and in the letter from are similar. 
o The Beneficiary's experience, without such fact certified by the DOL on the labor certification, lessens the credibility 
ofthe evidence and facts asserted. Matter of Leung, 16 l&N Dec. 12, 14-15 (Dist. Dir. 1976). 
3 
Matter of 1-T-N.A. Inc. 
C. Ability to Pay the Proffered Wage 
Although not addressed by the Director, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has the 
continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date. The proffered wage is $130,000 
per year. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) states in pertinent part: 
Ability of prospective employer to pay wage. Any pet1t10n filed by or for an 
employment-based immigrant which requires an offer of employment must be 
accompanied by evidence that the prospective United States employer has the ability 
to pay the proffered wage. The petitioner must demonstrate this ability at the time the 
priority date is established and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful 
permanent residence. Evidence of this ability shall be either in the form of copies of 
annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. 
A petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage is an essential element in evaluating whether a job offer 
is realistic. See Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977); see also 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). In evaluating whether a job offer is realistic, USCIS requires the petitioner to 
demonstrate financial resources sufficient to pay the beneficiary's proffered wages, although the totality 
of the circumstances affecting the petitioning business will be considered if the evidence warrants such 
consideration. See Matter o.fSonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967). 
In this case, the record does not contain an annual report, federal tax return, or audited financial 
statements for the Petitioner for 2016 as required by 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(g)(2). 7 Although the 2016 
audited financial statements or tax return would not been available at the time of filing, on remand, 
the Director should request regulatory-required evidence of the Petitioner's continuing ability to pay 
the proffered wage in 2016. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The decision of the Director regarding the Beneficiary's experience will be withdrawn. The matter 
is remanded to the Director for consideration of the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage in 
2016. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent. Similarly, the 
Petitioner may provide additional evidence within a reasonable period of time to be determined by 
the Director. Upon receipt of all the evidence, the Director will review the entire record and enter a 
new decision. 
7 
The record contains the Petitioner's federal tax return for 2015 and paystubs for the Beneficiary indicating that he had 
received wages of$77,420.06 year-to-date from the Petitioner as of July 31, 2016. 
4 
Matter of I-T-N A. Inc. 
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 of 1-T-N A. Inc., ID# 445077 (AAO Apr. 26, 20 17) 
5