Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. If you believe the AAO inappropriately 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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion 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 be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.
Thank you,
Ron Rosenberg
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.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 charter school system. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a principal. As required by statute, the petition is accompanied by an ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification (labor certification), approved by the United States Department of Labor (DOL). Upon reviewing the petition, the director determined that the evidence did not establish that the beneficiary possessed the required degree in the major field listed on the labor certification. The director denied the petition according! y.
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 February 1, 2012 denial, the issue in this case is whether the beneficiary possessed the required degree in the major field listed on the labor certification.
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.P.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. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). The AAO considers all pertinent evidence in the record, including new evidence properly submitted upon appeal.1
As 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 and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act; 20 C.P.R.§ 656.1(a). It is significant that none of the above inquiries assigned to the DOL, or the remaining regulations implementing these duties under 20 C.P.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 1 The submission of additional evidence on appeal is allowed by the instructions to the Form I-290B, which are incorporated into the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(1). 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 unnoticed by federal circuit courts. See Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F. 2d 1305, 1309 (91h Cir. 1984); Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
A United States baccalaureate degree is generally found to require four years of education. Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l. 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 equivalent ....
Significantly, the statutory language used prior to Matter of Shah, 17 I&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. Conf. Rep. No. 955, 101 st 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 assume 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 education. Mter 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 bachelor'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 p. 4 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 to 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 of Shah, 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 that is the "foreign equivalent degree" to a United States baccalaureate degree (plus the requisite five 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 five years of progressive experience in the specialty). For classification as a member of the professions, the regulation at 8 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 that a "baccalaureate means a bachelor's degree received from a college or university, 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 official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university, school or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability"). 2 Compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) (defining for purposes of a nonimmigrant visa classification, the "equivalence to completion of a college degree" as including, in certain cases, a specific combination of education and experience). The regulations pertaining to the immigrant classification sought in this matter do not contain similar language.
The key to determining the job qualifications is found on ETA Form 9089 Part H. This section of the application for alien labor certification, "Job Opportunity Information," describes the terms and conditions of the job offered. It is important that the ETA Form 9089 be read as a whole. When determining whether a beneficiary is eligible for a preference immigrant visa, USCIS may not ignore a term of the labor certification, nor may it impose additional requirements. See Madany, 696 F.2d at 1015. USCIS must examine "the language of the labor certification job requirements" in order to determine what the job requires. !d. The only rational manner by which USCIS can be expected to interpret the meaning of terms used to describe the requirements of a job in a labor certification is to examine the certified job offer exactly as it is completed by the prospective employer. See Rosedale Linden Park Company v. Smith, 595 F. Supp. 829, 833 (D.D.C. 1984) (emphasis added). USCIS's interpretation of the job's requirements, as stated on the labor certification must involve reading and applying the plain language of the labor certification application form. See id. at 834. USCIS cannot and should not reasonably be expected to look beyond the plain language of the labor certification that the DOL has formally issued or otherwise attempt to divine the employer's intentions through some sort of reverse engineering of the ETA Form 9089.
The required education, training, experience, and special requirements for the offered position are set forth at Part H of the ETA Form 9089. Here, Part H shows that the position requires: (1) a master's degree, or foreign educational equivalent, in education; and (2) 36 months of experience in the job offered, or 36 months as an assistant principal at the elementary, middle, or high school level? In lieu of the primary requirements specified, the ETA Form 9089 permits a bachelor's degree in education plus five years of experience as an acceptable alternate combination of education and experience.
Part J of the labor certification, which describes the beneficiary's qualifications for the position offered including information on the beneficiary's education, states that the beneficiary attended and received a Bachelor's degree in Chemical Engineering in 2003.
The labor certification and regulation cited above requires that an applicant for the position of principal have a master's degree and three years of experience in the job offered, or a bachelor's degree plus five years of experience in the job offered. The designated field of study on the ETA Form 9089 is education, as stated in Part H.4-B. on the labor certification. Chemical Engineering is not listed as an alternate field of study. While ETA Form 9089 permits and requests information on whether there is an acceptable alternate field of study, the petitioner checked "no" to question 7, part H, which asks if an alternate field of study was acceptable to the petitioner.
In this case, while it may be viewed that the beneficiary holds at least the foreign degree equivalent of a bachelor's degree in Chemical Engineering, his studies at ...... · · -- · .. do not indicate that he has ever received a master's degree or bachelor's degree in the required field of study, education. Therefore, the beneficiary does not qualify for preference visa classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Act.
Counsel argues on appeal that the alternate bachelor's degree requirement in the ETA Form 9089 should be construed to permit a bachelor's degree in any field -- including chemical engineering - so long as the applicant also has five years of progressive experience in education sufficient to be evaluated as "equivalent" to a master's degree in education. Counsel's argument is not persuasive. As noted above, USCIS is bound by the plain language of the ETA Form 9089 exactly as it was completed by the employer. See Rosedale Linden Park Company, 595 F.Supp. at 833-834. As the petitioner checked "no" to the question whether an alternative field of study was acceptable, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner reasonably intended the ETA Form 9089 to permit a bachelor's degree in any field plus five years of education experience as an alternate combination of education and experience. Furthermore, USCIS may not add terms to the labor certification. See e.g. Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008. As the ETA Form 9089 is silent as to another acceptable combination of a bachelor's degree in another field and study combined with five years of experience working in education that could clarify or supersede the petitioner's unambiguous prohibition of any alternate fields of study, users may not now include this alternate requirement.4 Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary possessed the education required by the terms of the labor certification as of the priority date.
Beyond the decision of the director,5 the petitioner has also failed to establish its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage as of the priority date. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(g)(2).
According to USCIS records, the petitioner has filed multiple I-140 petitions on behalf of other beneficiaries. Accordingly, the petitioner must establish that it has had the continuing ability to pay the combined proffered wages to each beneficiary from the priority date of the instant petition. See Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142, 144-145 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977).
While the petitioner did provide detailed explanations of the experience requirement, utilizing Part H.14. of ETA Form 9089 to expand upon the experience requirements provided previously on the form, the petitioner did not utilize this section to further describe its minimum education requirements for the job offered.
The evidence in the record does not document the priority date, proffered wage or wages paid to each beneficiary, whether any of the other petitions have been withdrawn, revoked, or denied, or whether any of the other beneficiaries have obtained lawful permanent residence. Thus, it is also concluded that the petitioner has not established its continuing ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary and the proffered wages to the beneficiaries of its other petitions.
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.