remanded EB-3 Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF V- INC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 9, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology and management consulting company, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a senior application developer. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled 
worker under the third preference immigrant category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(B)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based "EB-3" 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director found that the 
Beneficiary did not qualify for the requested classification because he did not meet the minimum 
requirements, in particular the educational requirement, of the labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies for the proffered position because he 
meets the minimum requirements of the labor certification through a combination of education, 
training, and experience 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the case for further 
consideration and the issuance of a new decision. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer obtains an 
approved 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). 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 of domestic workers similarly employed. Second, 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. 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 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
Matter of V- Inc 
In order to qualify for skilled worker classification, a beneficiary must possess at least two years of 
training or experience and meet the "educational, training or experience, and any other requirements 
of the individual labor certification." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B). The labor certification 
requirements must be met by the priority date of the petition. 1 See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 
16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At issue in this case is whether the Beneficiary meets the mm1mum requirements of the labor 
certification to qualify for the job offered and is otherwise eligible for the requested skilled worker 
classification. 
In his decision the Director referred to the petition as one seeking advanced degree professional 
classification for the Beneficiary and stated that the Petitioner could establish the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for this classification, in accord with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i), by documenting that he 
had either a U.S. advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree, or a U.S. baccalaureate degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree plus five years of qualifying experience. The Director found that the 
Beneficiary was not eligible because he does not have either a U.S. advanced degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree, or a U.S. baccalaureate or a foreign equivalent degree (without which experience 
cannot be considered for purposes of advanced degree professional classification). 
This decision was erroneous, however, because the Petitioner is not seeking advanced degree 
professional classification for the Beneficiary. The Petitioner is seeking skilled worker 
classification, which requires that the Beneficiary have two years of qualifying experience plus 
whatever additional requirements are prescribed in the labor certification. In this case, the labor 
certification requires a master's degree or a foreign educational equivalent in computer science, 
information technology, or a related field of study and six months of experience in the job offered or 
as an application developer or in a related occupation.2 
Because the Director did not adjudicate the petition as a request for skilled worker classification 
under section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and did not properly consider whether the Beneficiary meet 
the requirements of the individual labor certification in accord with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(B), we 
will remand the matter. On remand, the Director shall analyze whether the Beneficiary's education 
is sufficient to meet the terms of the labor certification filed in support of a skilled worker petition. 
The Director shall also determine whether the Beneficiary merits skilled worker classification. 
1 The priority date of a Form I-140 petition is the date the underlying labor certification was filed with the DOL. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5( d). In this case the priority date is July 24, 2017. 
2 In the request for evidence (RFE), the Director erroneously stated that the Petitioner could meet the requirements of the 
labor certification with a U.S. or foreign equivalent master's degree or a U.S. or foreign equivalent bachelor's degree and 
five years of qualifying experience. This is incorrect because the labor certification docs not allow the minimum 
educational requirement to be met with a bachelor's degree, or a bachelor's degree and five years of qualifying 
experience. 
2 
Matter of V- Inc 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we will remand this case to the Director for proper consideration of 
whether the Beneficiary meets the requirements of the individual labor certification and whether he 
is otherwise eligible for classification as a skilled worker. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of V- Inc, ID# 1581094 (AAO July 9, 2018) 
3