remanded EB-3 Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 07304440 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for a Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 14, 2020 
The Petitioner, an IT and engineering services company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a systems 
analyst. It requests skilled worker classification for the Beneficiary 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 Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary met the minimum educational and experience requirements of 
the labor certification and did not have the requisite experience to qualify for skilled worker 
classification. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the documentation of record establishes that the Beneficiary has 
the requisite education and experience to meet the terms of the labor certification and to qualify for 
the requested visa classification. 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision. We will 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 (ETA Form 9089) 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, the 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. See section 
212(a)(5)(A)(i)(l)-(II) of the Act. 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
To qualify for classification as a skilled worker a beneficiary must have at least two years of training 
or experience. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(I)(3)(ii)(B). A beneficiary must also meet the specific educational, 
training, experience, or other requirements of the labor certification. Id. All such requirements must 
be met by the petition's priority date,1 which in this case is November 29, 2018. See Matter of Wing's 
Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). 
A. Requirements of the Labor Certification 
The education, training, experience, and other requirements for the proffered position are set forth in 
section H of the ETA Form 9089. In this case section H has the following relevant entries with respect 
to the proffered position of systems analyst: 
4. 
4-B. 
5. 
6. 
6-A. 
7. 
7-A. 
8. 
8-A. 
8-B. 
8-C. 
9. 
10. 
10-A. 
10-B. 
Education: Minimum level required: 
Major Field of Study: 
Is training required in the job opportunity? 
Is experience in the job offered required? 
How long? 
Is an alternate field of study acceptable? 
If Yes, what field of study 
Is an alternate combination of education 
Bachelor's degree 
Computer Science 
No 
Yes 
24 months 
Yes 
See H.14 
and experience acceptable? Yes 
What level of education" Other 
If Other, what level? See H.14 
How much experience? 2 years 
Is a foreign educational equivalent acceptable? Yes 
Is experience in an alternate occupation acceptable? Yes 
How long? 24 months 
What job title(s) Related IT or 
Engineering role 
11. Job duties -
Under close supervision, assist with the analysis of user requirements. Define 
systems strategy and develop systems requirements. Responsible for designing 
prototyping, testing, and defining support procedures. Involved with the 
implementation of custom technology solutions. Assist with the full cycle 
implementation. Perform functional and systems analysis, including feasibility 
and design studies. Evaluate and recommend new/improved processes and 
technological innovations as per the client's specifications. Travel and work at 
client sites as assigned. 
1 The priority date of a petition is the date the underlying labor certification is filed with the DOL. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
2 
14 Specific skills and other requirements: 
Requires Bachelor's degree* or foreign equivalent in Computer Science, 
Engineering (any), Information Technology, Computer Applications, Computer 
Technology, Computer Information Systems, Management Information Systems, 
or related field plus two (2) years experience in the job offered, or related IT or 
engineering role. *Employer will accept a combination of education and 
experience as determined by a qualified evaluation service as equivalent to a 
Bachelor's degree. Travel and work at client sites as assigned. 
Thus, with respect to education the labor certification requires a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign 
educational equivalent in computer science or a related field of study such as engineering, information 
technology, computer applications, computer technology, computer information systems, or management 
information systems. Alternatively, the labor certification allows the educational requirement to be met 
with a combination of education and experience that is equivalent to a bachelor's degree. 
With respect to experience the labor certification requires two years as a systems analyst or, alternatively, 
two years in a related occupation in the information technology or engineering fields. 
B. Beneficiary's Qualifications 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary meets the alternate educational requirement and the alternate 
occupational experience requirement of the labor certification. 
The evidence of record shows that the Beneficiary has two credentials fTm institutions of higher 
education in India, including a three-year bachelor of commerce degree from_ !university 
in I l awarded in 2001, and a two-year post-graduate diploma in business administration 
from the Institute for Technology and Management inl I awarded in 2003. The Petitioner does 
not contend that these two credentials, either individually or together, constitute the foreign educational 
equivalent of a bachelor's degree in computer science or one of the related fields of study identified in 
the labor certification. What the Petitioner does assert in section J.11 and J.11-A of the labor certification 
is that the Beneficiary's three-year bachelor of commerce plus relevant work experience is equivalent to 
a bachelor's degree in computer information systems and business administration, which would meet the 
labor certification's alternative educational requirement. 
As for the Beneficiary's work experience, the documentation of record includes copies of employment 
verification letters from two companies in India. They includ~ I 
in I I India, which states that the Beneficiary was employed as an assistant manager from June 
2003 to August 2010 and describes his job duties, and I I in I I 
I I India, which states that the Beneficiary was employed as an associate business manager 
(with an internal designation of systems analyst) from August 2010 to February 2015 and describes his 
job duties. Both of these jobs are listed in section K or the labor certification in accordance with its 
instruction to list any "experience that qualifies the [Beneficiary] for the job oppmiunity" at issue in this 
proceeding. The record also indicates that the Beneficiary has been employed by the Petitioner as a 
3 
systems analyst since February 2015, but the labor certification indicates at section J.21 that this 
employment is not being claimed as qualifying experience in this proceeding. 
In support of its claim that the Beneficiary meets the alternative educational requirements of the labor 
certification the Petitioner has submitted two evaluations of the Beneficiary's education and experirce,I 
the first by The Trustforte Corporation {Trustforte evaluation) and the second by a professor at the 
University ofl , levaluation). Both evaluations conclude that the Beneficiary's three­
year bachelor of commerce degree from I I University is equivalent to three years of academic 
coursework toward a bachelor of business administration in the United States. Both evaluations 
considered his employment withO featuring job duties in the field of computer information systems 
and associated technologies, were equivalent to one year of academic coursework in computer 
informatiol sys
1
ems,2 and that the combination of the three-year bachelor of commerce degree and years 
of work at would be the equivalent to a bachelor of science degree with a dual major in computer 
information systems (or information technology) and business administration from a U.S. college or 
university. 
The Trustforte evaluation focused on the years June 2003 to June 2006 and described the Beneficiary's 
~ experience: "he was entrusted with ensuring banking transactions were accurately processed ... ; 
serving as the Subject Matter Expert in International Trade Finance;" and other banking functions. It also 
states that he "obtained hands-on experience with various banking systems" and performed other IT 
functions. Thus, the evaluation discusses a mixed experience with both business duties and IT functions, 
but concludes that the experience was sufficient to reach the dual major concentration. As the evaluation 
states mixed experience, it is not clear that all three of the years discussed would represent sufficient IT 
experience to reach a formulation of a dual major to include a major in information technology. 
Thel t evaluation notes the Beneficiary's seven years of experience, but later opines that only "three 
years of qualifying professional experience" would be required to reach the additional year for the 
bachelor's equivalency. Another part of the evaluation discusses the Beneficiary's "approximately seven 
years and two months of progressively responsible duties in macros development, troubleshooting, 
process improvement, automation, implementation validation, information technology, and related 
areas." He fmiher notes, "his demonstrated progressively responsible expe1ience, completed over the 
course of seven years and two months, provides a suitable basis for a finding of a major equivalency in 
the field of Information Technology."3 
The first evaluation appears deficient in ascribing a full equivalent year in Information Technology based 
on mixed business and IT duties. Without knowing what percent of the Beneficiary's work was IT related 
compared to business related, the first evaluation seems deficient. While the second evaluation appears 
to hinge on the full amount of experience, although acknowledging the three to one experience to 
education formula, it would not appear to allow any experience left to meet the separate experience 
requirement if it relies on the full seven years of experience to reach sufficient IT related job duties. 
2 While the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), applicable for H-1B nonimmigrant petitions, allows three years 
of specialized training and/or work experience to be considered the equivalent of one year of college or university study, 
there is no similar regulation for employment-based immigrant petitions. 
3 Neither evaluation addressed the Beneficiary's four and one-half years of experience with I I in the years 2010-2015. 
4 
In his decision the Director listed some of the Beneficiary's job duties withl I in the years 2010-
2015, drawn from the initial employment verification letter, and stated without much analysis that they 
did not appear to indicate that the Beneficiary worked as a systems analyst or in a related IT or engineering 
role for the company. We note that the Director did not discuss a second letter from I I submitted 
in response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID) that provided a more detailed description of 
the Beneficiary's job duties. The Director then referred to the Trustforte evaluation. ,hich evaluated the 
Beneficiary's post-secondary education in India and his work experience with as equivalent to a 
U.S. bachelor's degree with a dual major in computer information systems and business administration, 
and concluded that th is evaluation was not supported by the evidence because "[a] s previously stated, the 
[B]eneficiary's professional experience also appears to be in business administration." The only 
professional experience specifically discussed in the Director's decision, however, was the Beneficiary's 
exRerience withl I from 2010 to 2015. That experience was not included in the Trustforte (or 
thel I evaluation, and was not separately analyzed by the Director. Therefore, the Director's 
statement that the Trustforte evaluation's opinion is not supported by the evidence is incorrect insofar as 
the Director has not addressed or made any specific determination about wheth~ Beneficiary 
performed the functions of a systems analyst or a related IT or engineering job withl_J and whether 
those job duties were qualifying experience for the job offered. 
C. Recruitment Documentation 
The Director referred in his decision to recruitment documents having been submitted which show that 
the Petitioner required a bachelor's degree or a combination of education and experience determined by 
a qualified evaluation service to be equivalent to a bachelor's degree. There are no such documents in 
the file, however, so it is unclear what the Director meant. In any event, recruitment documents -
including copies of all posted job advertisements and all resumes received-could indeed help to establish 
what the Petitioner actually required with respect to education and experience to qualify for the job 
offered, how those requirements were expressed to U.S. workers, and whether workers with 
combinations of education and experience were considered. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we will remand this case for further consideration. The Director shall 
request additional evidence from the Petitioner in the form of all posted job advertisements and resumes 
received to determine how the Petitioner's actual educational and experience requirements for the systems 
analyst position were expressed and considered. The Director shall also review the Trustforte and I I 
evaluations, in conjunction with the documentation in the record concerning the Beneficiaiy's educational 
credentials and employment experience, and determine whether they establish that the Beneficiary's 
education in combination with his experience at~would qualify him for the proffered position of 
systems analyst under the terms of the labor certification. The Director should also reconsider whether 
the Beneficiary's employment with I I was qualifying experience in view of the second 
employment verification letter submitted byl I which was not addressed in the decision. 
5 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
6