. - -: -.
. . ·- · .. - (
Date: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
APR 2 6 2013
·. IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Scn•ircs
Administrative Appeals Ollice ( i\t\0)
20 Mass;u.:husctts i\vc .. N.W .. MS~O'lO
Washington . DC 2052<J.2()<J()
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
FILE:
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien · Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Seution 203(h)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :
INSTRUCTIONS:·
Enclo sed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case . All of the dm:umerHs related to this matter have peen returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office .
If you believe the AAO . imippropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in accordance with the instructions on Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing s~ch a m()tion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to he filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. · TIOD Ron Rosenberg
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.usds.gov
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, and · is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petitioner is a restaurant. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a business development manager. As required by statute, the petition is accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, approved by the United States Department of Labor (DOL). · Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the beneficiary did not satisfy the minimum level of education stated on the labor certification or as required by the advanced degree professional classification. The director denied the peiition accordingly.
The record shows that the appeal is properly filed, timely and makes a specific allegation of error in law or fact. The procedural history in this case is documented by the record and incorporated into the decision. Further elaboration of the procedural history will be made only as necessary. As set forth in the director's November 29, 2011 denial, the single issue in .this case is whether the beneficiary possessed the minimum level of education stated on the labor certification and as required by the advanced degree professional visa category.
In pertinent part, section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. * 1153(b)(2), provides immigrant classification to members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent and whose services are sought by an employer in the United States. An advanced degree is a United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above the baccalaureate level. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The regulation further states: "A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree . If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree." /d.
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DO./, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appea1.1
A'i noted above, the ETA Form 9089 in this matter is certified by the DOL. The DOL's role is limited to determining whether there are sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified and available and whether the employment of the alien will adversely affect the wages arid working conditions of workers in the United S'tates similarly employed. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 656.1 (a). It is significant that none of the above inquiries assigned to the DOL, or the remaining regulat.ions 1 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form 1-2908, which are incorporated into the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l). The record in the instant case provides no reason to preclude consideration of any of the documents newly submitted on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988). p. 3 implementing these duties under 20 C.F.R. § 656, involve a determination as to whether or not the alien is qualified for a specific immigrant classification or even the job offered. This . fact has not gone unnoticed by federal circuit courts. See Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F. 2d 1305, 1309 (9 hCir. 1984); Madllny v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (6.C. Cir. 1983).
A United States baccalaureate degree is generally found to require four years of education. Matter of Shah, 17 l&N Dec. 244 (Reg'!. Comm'r: 1977). This decision involved a petition ·filed under 8 U.S.C. §1153(a)(3) as amended in 1976. At that time, this section provided:
Visas shall next be made available . ' .. to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions ....
The Act added section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(2)(A), which provides: Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their eq4ivalent ....
Significantly, the statutory language used prior to Matter of Shah, 17 l&N Dec. at 244, is identical to the statutory language used subsequent to that decision but for the requirement that the immigrant hold an advanced degree or its equivalent. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, published as part of .the House of Representatives Conference Report on the Act, provides that "[in] considering equivalency in category 2 advanced degrees, it is anticipated that the alien' must have a bachelor's degree with at least five years progressive experience in the professions." H.R. Con[ Rep. No. 955, I. 0 I Sl Cong., 2"d Sess. 1990, 1990 u .S.C.C.A.N. 6784, 1990 WL 201613 at *6786 (Oct. 26, 1990).
At the time of enactment of section·203(b)(2) of the Act in 1990, it had been almost thirteen years since Matter of Shah was issued. Congress is presumed to have intended a four-year degree when it stated that an alien "must have a bachelor's degree" when considering equivalency for second preference immigrant visas . . We must assu~e that Congress was aware of the agency's previous treatment of a "bachelor's degree'? under the Act when the new classification was enacted and did not intend to alter the agency's interpretation of that term. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-81 (1978) (Congress is presumed to be aware of administrative and judicial interpretations where it adopts a new law incorporating sections of a prior law). See also 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991) (an alien must have at least a bachelor's degree).
In 1991, when the final rule for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 was published in the Federal Register, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the Service), responded to criticism that the regulation required an alien to have a bachelor's degree as a minimum and that the_regulation did not allow for the substitution of experience for e·ducation. After reviewing section 121 of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649 (1990), and the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, the Service specifically noted that both the Act and the legislative history indicate that an alien must have at least a b~chelor's degree; · ·
The Act states that, in order to qualify under the second classification, alien· members of the professions :must hold "advanced degrees or their equivalent.., As the legislative history ... indicates, the equivalent of an advanced degree is "a bachelor's degree with at least five years progressive experience in the professions." Because neither the Act nor its legislative history indicates that bachelor's or. advanced degrees must be United States degrees, the Service will recognize foreign equivalent degrees.
But both the Act and its legislative history make clear that, in order to qualify as a professional under the third classification or to have experience equating lo an advanced degree under the second, an alien must have at least a bachelor ·s degree . .
56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991) (emphasis added).
There is no provision in· the statute or the regulations that would allow a beneficiary to qualify under section 203(b)(2) of the Act as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with anything less than a full baccalaureate degree (plus the requisite five years of progressive experience in the specialty). More specifically, a three-year bachelor's degree will not be considered to be the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree. Matter ofShah, 17 I&N Dec. at 245. Where the analysis of the beneficiary's credentials relies on work experience alone or a combination of multiple lesser degrees, the result is .the "equivalent" of a bachelor's degree rather than a "foreign equivalent degree." 2 · In order to have experience and education equating to an advanced degree under section 203(b)(2) of the Act, the beneficiary must have a single degree thai is the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree (plus the requisite live years of progressive experience in the specialty). 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
For this classification, advanced degree professional~ the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requires the submission of an "official academic record showing that the alien has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree" (plus evidence of tive years of progressive experience in the specialty). For classification as a member of the professions, the regulation at ~ C.F.R. § 204.5{1)(3)(ii)(C) requires ·the submission of "an official college or university record showing the date the baccalaureate degree was awarded and the area of concentration of study.'' We cannot conclude that the evidence required to demonstrate that an alien is an advanced degree professional is .any less than the evidence required to show-that the alien is a professional. To do so would undermine the congressionally mandated classification scheme by allowing a lesser .evidentiary standard for the more restrictive visa classification. Moreover, the commentary accompanying the proposed advanced degree professional regulation specifically states thai a "baccalaureate means a bachelor's degree received from a college or universi~y, or an equivalent degree." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30306 (July 5, 1991 ). Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) (relating to aliens of exceptional ability requiring the submission of "an oflicial 2 Compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) (defining for purposes of a nonimmigrant v1sa classification, the "equivalence to completion of a college degree" as including, in certaiJ1 cases. a specific combination of education and experience). The regulations pertaining to the immigrant classification sought in this matter do not .contain similar language.
" academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university, sch~ol or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability " ). The required education, training, experience, and special requiremenis for the offered position are set forth at Part H of the ETA Form 9089. Here, Part H shows that the position requires a master" s degree, or foreign educational equivalent; in sociology. Part H-8 asks the employer if there is an alternate combination of education and experience that is acceptable. The petitioner answered this question "no." Therefore, the minimum education required by the labor certification is a master's degree or foreign educational equivalent. The petitioner did notpermit a bachelor's degree plus tive years of experience as an alternative combination of education and experience. USClS may not ignore a term on a labor certification, nor may it impose additional requirements. See, e.g .. Ma/tanv, 696 F.2d 1008.
The record contains a copy of the beneficiary's Higher School of Public Administration diploma from the in Poland and a master's diploma from the
The record contains the following educational evaluations of the beneficiary's credentials:
- An evaluation from The evaluation is dated September 28, 2011. The evaluation is signed by . _ The evaluation describes the beneficiary's three years of undergraduate study and the master's diploma as being the equivalent of a U.S. combined bachelor's and master's degree in business administration and sociology. ·
- An evaluation from The evaluation is dated April 21, 2009. The evaluation is signed by The evaluation describes the beneficiary's three years of undergraduate study and the master's diploma as being the equivalent of a U.S. Master of Arts degree in sociology.
- An evaluation from The evaluation is dated January 15, 2013. The evaluation is signed by The evaluation describes the beneliciary's three yea.rs of undergraduate study and the master's diploma as being the equivalent of a U.S. Master of Arts degree in sociology.
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimon y. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795. (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately resppnsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. /d. The submission of ietters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. USCIS may evaluate the content of the letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility .. See id. USCIS may give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. /d. at 795. See also Matter of Soffici , 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec 190 (Reg: Commr. 1972)); Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 2011)(expert witness testimony p. 6 may be given different weight depending on the extent of the expert's qualifications or the relevance. reliability, and probative value of the testimony).
The evaluations are not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary's education from Poland is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree. None of the evaluations compares the beneficiary's education in Poland to a U.S. master's degree program. The evaluators also fail to address the actual courses of study followed by the beneficiary. Moreover, none of the evaluations is peer-reviewed or relies on peer-reviewed materials in reaching their unsubstantiated conclusions. Accordingly, in this matter, · the AAO will prefer the peer-reviewed information provided by EDGE on the equivalency of the beneficiary's foreign education to a U.S. master's degree.
EDGE was created by the American Association of Collegiate · Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). According to its website, www.aacrao.org, AACRAO is "a nonprofit, voluntary, professional association of more than 11,000 higher education admissions and registration professionals who represent approximately 2,600 institutions and agencies in the United States and in over 40 countries." See http://www.aacrao.org/About-AACRAO.aspx (accessed January 23, 2013 and incorporated into the record of proceeding). . Its mission "is to provide professional development, guidelines and voluntary .standards to be used by higher education officials regarding the best practices in records management, admissions, enrollment management, administrative . infom1ation technology and student services." /d. In Confluence Intern., Inc. v. Holder, 2009 WL 825793 (D. Minn. March 27, 2009), a federal district court determined that the AAO provided a rational explanation for its reliance on information provided by AACRAO to support its decision. According to the login . page, EDGE is "a web-:-based resource for the evaluation of foreign educational credentials" that is continually updated and revised by staff and members of AACRAO. Director of International Education Services, "AACRAO EDGE Login.'' http://aacraoedge.aacrao.org/index.php (accessed January 23, 2013 and incorporated into the ·record of proceeding). In Tiseo Group,' Inc. v. Napolitano, 2010 WL 3464314 (E.D.Mich. August 30, 2010), a federal distriCt court found that USCIS had properly weighed the evaluations submitted and the information obtained from EDGE to conclude that the alien's three-year foreign "baccalaureate'· and foreign "Master's" degree were comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree. In Sunshine Rehab Services, Inc., 2010 WL 3325442 (E.D.Mich. August 20, 2010), a federal district court upheld a USCIS conclusion that the alien's three-year bachelor's degree was not a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Specifically, the court concluded that USCIS was entitled to prefer the information in EDGE and did not ab,use its discretion in reaching its conclusion. The court also noted that the labor certification itself required a degree and did not allow for the combination of education and experience. The reasoning in these decisions is persuasive.
In the section related to the Polish educational system, EDGE provides that the Dyplom/Titlc of Master "represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States."
Based on the juried opinion of EDGE, the AAO has concluded that the beneficiary's education is more likely than not comparable to a bachelor's degree in the Uni~ed . States. Since the ETA Form p. 7 f ' • •
9089 required a master's degree as the minimum level oLeducation, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed all the education, training, and experience specified on the labor certification as of the priority date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). See Matter of Wing's Tea House, . 16 I&N Dec. at 159; see also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. '45, 49(Reg. Comm. 1971). Therefore, the beneficiary does not meet the job requirements on the labor certification. The burden of. proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not met th~t burden.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.