sustained EB-3 Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF I-T- INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 5, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an IT consulting firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a software engineer-quality. 
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 found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets the minimum 
requirements of the labor certification. The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the 
Petitioner claims the Director ignored evidence that the Beneficiary had gained the required 
experience with the Petitioner. Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
As required by statute, the petition is accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, Application for 
Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification), certified by the U.S. Department of Labor 
(DOL). The priority date of the labor certification is November 7, 2014. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d). 
The Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary satisfied all of the educational, training, experience 
and any other requirements of the offered position by the priority date. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(I), (12). 
See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977); see also 
Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Upon review of the entire record, including evidence submitted on appeal and in response to our May 
12, 2016, notice of intent to deny and request for evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
established that the Beneficiary met the minimum requirements of the labor certification by the priority 
date and that it has the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage. Accordingly, the petition is 
approved under section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii) ofthe Act. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 
(BIA 1966); Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The Petitioner has met that 
burden. 
Matter of 1-T- Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of 1-T- Inc., ID# 111579 (AAO Oct. 5, 20 16) 
2