remanded EB-3 Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF I-E-I-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 12,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
customer service manager. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the 
third preference immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
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 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 required 
by the terms of the labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional documentation and asserts that the 
Beneficiary meets the minimum requirements of the labor certification. 
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 generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer must obtain 
an approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).1 See section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) 
ofthe 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 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 
1 
The date the labor certification is filed is called the "priority date." A beneficiary must be eligible for the requested 
classification as of that date. 
.
Matter of 1-E-1-, Inc. 
immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, adjustment of status in the United States. See section 245 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 
The Petitioner requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker. In order to qualify as a 
skilled worker, the 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). In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, we must 
examine the job offer portion of a labor certification to determine. the minimum requirements of an 
offered position. We may neither ignore a term of the labor certification, nor impose additional 
requirements. See, e.g., Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-I3 (D.C. Cir. I983). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Beneficiary's Education 
The first issue in this case is whether the Beneficiary possesses the minimum education required by 
the terms of the labor certification. In section H of the labor certification, the Petitioner specified 
that a bachelor's degree with a major field of study in business administration was the minimum 
educational requirement for the proffered position and that a foreign educational equivalent was 
acceptable. 
Section J of the labor certification stated that the Beneficiary's highest level of education was a 
bachelor of business studies from the m Bangladesh. The Petitioner 
submitted copies of the Beneficiary's academic records from showing that he 
was awarded a bachelor of business studies in 20 II, after completing a three-year course of study. 
The Petitioner claimed that this degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in business 
administration; however, a U.S. bachelor's degree generally reflects thecompletion of four years of 
studies. Matter ofShah, 17 I&N Dec. 244, 245 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director informed the Petitioner that he had consulted the 
Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), published by the American Association of 
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO)? Federal courts have found EDGE to be 
a reliable, peer-reviewed source of foreign educational equivalencies. See, e.g., Viraj. LLC v. U.S. 
Att'y Gen., 578 Fed. Appx. 907, 910 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that USCIS may discount educational 
evaluations that differ from reports in EDGE, which is "a respected source of information"). The 
Director advised the Petitioner that according to EDGE, the Beneficiary's degree equated to three 
years of university study in the United States but not to a U.S. bachelor's degree. As a consequence, 
the Director explained that the Beneficiary did not meet the minimum educational requirements of 
the labor certification. 
2 
AACRAO is a nonprofit association of more than II ,000 higher education admissions and registration professionals, 
representing about 2600 institutions worldwide. AACRAO, at http://www.aacrao.org/home/about (last visited June 29, 
2017). 
2 
.
Matter of 1-E-1-, Inc. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary had completed an 
additional 33 credits from a master's degree program in business administration at 
in Bangladesh, and that when coupled with his degree from 
the academic record "should establish that he meets the educational requirements" as listed on the 
labor certification. The Petitioner submitted a transcript showing that the Beneficiary had completed 
33 additional credits from as of the priority date of petition.3 However, the 
Director denied the petition, finding that the Beneficiary's degree combined with the additional 
credits did not equate to a bachelor's degree according to EDGE. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erroneously denied the petition because the 
admission process to university in Bangladesh is comparable to that of aU .S. university and refers to 
evidence that the Beneficiary completed secondary school in Bangladesh prior to his entry into 
However, this information would only demonstrate that in 
Bangladesh has entry requirements similar to those of a U.S. college or university. This evidence 
would not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's subsequent graduation from the university's three-year 
degree program in business studies is comparable to graduation from a four-year bachelor's program 
in business studies in the United States. For this reason, the Petitioner's evidence that the 
Beneficiary satisfied the entry requirements for in Bangladesh is not evidence 
that the three-year degree he subsequently attained is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's 
degree. 
The Petitioner further contends that the Beneficiary's coursework at was 
challenging and analogous to a U.S. undergraduate program focused on business administration. 
Specifically, the Petitioner provides a website printout of the undergraduate curriculum for a 
business major at Referring 
to some of the required courses at the program, the Petitioner asserts that "the main 
coursework ... makes up three years of the four-year program" and is similar to the coursework that 
the Beneficiary completed at in Bangladesh. Thus, the Petitioner contends, the 
Beneficiary completed generalized and specialized coursework equivalent to attainment of a 
bachelor degree in business administration from an accredited institution of higher education in the 
United States. However, the first sentence on the printouts advises that its "undergraduate 
business major takes four years - eight semesters - to complete," not just three years of "main 
coursework." As discussed, the Beneficiary's degree is a three-year degree with six semesters of 
coursework and on the face of it does not appear to meet the requirements for a four-year degree, as 
described on the printouts. The Petitioner did not include a course-by-course comparison of 
the Beneficiary's studies to show how he completed coursework that is equivalent to all of the 
coursework required for a U.S. bachelor's degree in business administration at or any other 
institution. Accordingly, the Petitioner's analysis of the program lacks sufficient details to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's foreign three-year degree in business studies is the equivalent of a 
U.S. bachelor's degree. 
3 The Petitioner also completed additional credit hours in pursuit of a master's degree after the priority date of the 
petition. 
3 
.
Matter of 1-E-1-, Inc. 
The Petitioner also submits a printout of a document written by and of 
which concludes that "there are extremely strong arguments 
for granting equivalence between the Indian three-year bachelor's degree and the bachelor's degree 
as awarded in the United States," and notes that some U.S. universities will consider accepting an 
Indian three-year degree on a case by case basis. However, the Beneficiary has a three-year degree 
from Bangladesh rather than India, and the Petitioner has not shown that or any U.S. university 
reviewed the Beneficiary's transcripts, coursework, and credentials and found his degree to be 
equivalent to a four-year, U.S. bachelor's degree. Consequently, this document does not establish 
that the Beneficiary holds a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. 
Based on the foregoing, we agree with the Director that the Beneficiary's bachelor's degree alone 
cannot be considered the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. However, on a~peal the 
Petitioner also contends that it intended to accept a "foreign educational equivalent" and that the 
combination of the Beneficiary's bachelor's degree and master's degree coursework satisfies the 
requirement for a degree equivalency. The Petitioner cites to Snapnames.com, Inc. v. Chertq[f, 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." In Snapnames, 
the beneficiary held a three-year degree and membership in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of 
India. Although the court upheld USCIS' 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 bachelor's degree or 
foreign equivalent degree required by the labor certification and denied the visa petition on this 
basis. However, the Petitioner checked Part 2.l.f. on the Form 1-140, indicating that it seeks 
classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker, where there is no statutory degree requirement. 
As such, we may consider the Petitioner's intent as it was expressed throughout the labor 
certification process. Although the Petitioner claims for the first time on appeal that it intended to 
accept an equivalent to a bachelor's degree for purposes of this classification, the record does not 
contain evidence from the Petitioner regarding its intent. 
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, as it claims on appeal (i.e., 
whether the Petitioner intended to accept a degree equivalency based on a combination of academic 
4 
.
Matter of 1-E-1-, Inc. 
degrees and completed coursework) 4 and for a determination on whether the Beneficiary's education 
meets the minimum requirements claimed by the Petitioner~ 
Evidence of intent would include documentation concerning the mmtmum 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 tor the position , the job order, the posted 
notice of the filing of the labor certification , copies of resumes received for U.S. applicants , and any 
other communications with the DOL that may be probative of intent, such as correspondence or 
documents generated in response to ~n audit. 
The Director should also review this ~ocumentation to see if the Petitioner stated that it would 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. 
B. Beneficiary's Experience 
Also on remand, the Director should consider whether or not the Petitioner has established that the 
Beneficiary has the required experience for the proffered position. At section H of the labor 
certification, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires six months of experience in the 
job offered or, in the alternate , six months experience as an advisor/coordinator. At section K of the 
labor certification , the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary has three years of work experience as 
a speaking test supervisor at the in Bangladesh from January 2012 to January 2015 
and the Beneficiary signed the labor certification, attesting that the work experience claim was 
accurate. The Petitioner included the Beneficiary's resume, on which the Beneficiary stated that he 
had been working as a speaking test supervisor at the . since January 2012. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided a letter dated November 24, 2016, from an 
exams manager at the in Bangladesh , who attested that the Beneficiary had worked 
there as a speaking test day supervisor from January 2011 to May 2016, and as an examinations 
services officer since June 2016. The beginning date of employment listed the letter 
is not consistent with the Petitioner's claim and the information on the Beneficiary's resume 
4 
Section H.9 of the labor certification asks a petitioning employer the following question: "Is a foreign educational 
equivalent acceptable? " However, 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. 
5 
Matter of 1-E-1-, Inc. 
indicating that the Beneficiary began his employment in January 2012. Based on the contradictory 
information regarding the Beneficiary's employment, the Petitioner has not established when the 
Beneficiary began his qualifying employment and how much experience he has. For this reason, the 
Petitioner does not appear to have established that Beneficiary possesses the minimum experience 
required for the offered position, and the Director must consider this on remand. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
We will remand the matter to the Director to determine whether the Petitioner expressed intent for 
the terms of the labor certification to permit a combination academic work equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree and whether the Beneficiary's combination of education meets the intended 
minimum requirements. The Director should also consider whether the Petitioner has established 
that the Beneficiary possesses the minimum experience required for the offered position. 
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-E-1-, Inc., ID# 532635 (AAO Sept. 12, 2017)