sustained EB-3 Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 07051175 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Skilled Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DA TE: JAN. 24, 2020 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer and seller of trucks, parts, and industrial equipment, seeks to employ 
the Beneficiary as a senior software engineer. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition on the ground that due to discrepancies 
in the labor certification the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary met the minimum 
experience requirements of the labor certification. On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Director 
misinterpreted the tenns of the labor certification and that the evidence of record establishes that the 
Beneficiary meets the minimum experience requirements indicated on that document. 
Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
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(1)(3)(ii)(B). A beneficiary must also meet the specific educational, 
training, experience, and other requirements of the labor certification. Id. All requirements must be 
met by the petition's priority date. 1 See Matter of Wing 's Tea House , 16 I&N Dec . 158, 159 (Acting 
Reg'! Comm'r 1977). 
In this case the labor certification presents an issue of requirements interpretation. While stating that 
the minimum educational requirement is a bachelor's degree (U.S. or foreign equivalent) in computer 
science, information systems or a related field of study and that the minimum experience requirement 
is 48 months (four years) of relevant experience, it also states that an individual may qualify for the 
proffered position with an alternate level of experience and no educational credential. See section H, 
subsections 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the labor certification. In section H.14 of the labor certification the 
Petitioner elaborates on the alternative job requirements, restating the primary requirements of a 
bachelor's degree and four years ofrelevant experience but also specifying that in lieu of a bachelor's 
1 The "priority date" of a petition is the date the underlying labor certification was filed with the Department of Labor. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(d). The priority date in this case is November 9, 2018. 
degree two years of additional experience in an IT-related position was acceptable. Thus, the labor 
certification appears to contain inconsistent alternative requirements between sections H. l O and H.14. 
The Director requested additional evidence to explain the discrepancy between sections H.10 and 
H.14. In response the Petitioner submitted documentary evidence in the form of its application for 
prevailing wage determination with the Department of Labor and job advertisements for the proffered 
position, all of which described the requirements for the proffered position as either a bachelor's 
degree and four years of experience, or in lieu of a bachelor's degree two years of additional 
experience, making a total of six years of experience. 
We find that the evidence of record, which is supplemented on appeal by a brief and one additional 
document, establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner intended to require either 
a bachelor's degree and four years of relevant experience or, alternatively, six years of relevant 
experience with no educational degree. This interpretation accords with all of the Petitioner's job 
advertisements, its application for prevailing wage determination, and the entries in section H.14 of 
the labor certification. 
Based on the entire record, therefore, we find that the Petitioner has resolved the ambiguity on the face 
of the labor certification, and that the minimum alternative experience requirement is six years, as set 
forth with specificity and elaborated on in section H.14. The record shows that the Beneficiary has 
more than six years of qualifying experience. Accordingly, the Beneficiary meets the alternative 
experience requirement of the labor certification and qualifies for skilled worker classification under 
the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2