The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a computer research scientist under the second- preference, immigrant classification for members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalents. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A).
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's possession of an educational degree in the field of study required for the offered position.
The Petitioner appeals the decision and bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. Seesection291oftheAct,8U.S.C.§1361. Upondenovareview,wewilldismisstheappeal.
Employment-Based Immigration
Immigration as an advanced degree professional generally follows a three-step process. First, to permanently fill a position in the United States with a foreign worker, a prospective employer must obtain certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See section 212(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5). DOL approval signifies that insufficient U.S. workers are able, willing, qualified, and available for a position. Id. Labor certification also signifies that employment ofa noncitizen will not harm wages and worlcing conditions ofU.S. workers with similarjobs. Id.
If DOL approves a position, an employer must next submit the certified labor application with an immigrant visa petition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154. Among other things, USCIS considers whether a beneficiary meets the requirementsofacertifiedpositionandarequestedimmigrantvisaclassification. IfUSCISapproves a petition, a designated noncitizen may finally 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.
The Required Field of Study
A petitioner must demonstrate a beneficiary's possession ofall DOL-certified, job requirements ofan offered position by a petition's priority date. Matter o f Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Acting Reg'l Comm'r 1977). This petition's priority date is April 5, 2019, the date DOL accepted the labor certification application for processing. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d) (explaining how to determine a petition's priority date).
In evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications, USCIS must examine the job-offer portion of an accompanying labor certification to determine a position's minimum requirements. "The job requirements, as described [on a labor certification application], must represent the employer's actual minimum requirements forthejob opportunity." 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(l). USCISmayneitherignore a certification term, nor impose additional requirements. See, e.g., Madany v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1008, 1015 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (holding that "DOL bears the authority for setting the content of the labor certification") (emphasis added).
The accompanying labor certification states the minimum requirements of the offered position of computer research scientist as a U.S. doctorate, or a foreign equivalent degree, in "Computer Science" and two years of experience as a lead data scientist or in a related occupation. The labor certification On the labor certification, the Beneficiary attested that, by the petition's priority date, an~I-~~ university awarded her a doctorate in "Computer Science." Her employment experience is not at issue.
The Petitioner submitted a copy of the Beneficiary's university diploma. The diploma states her receipt, by the petition's priority date, of a doctorate in "Information Systems." The Petitioner also submitted an independent, professional evaluation ofthe Beneficiary's foreign educational credentials. The evaluation concludes that herl Idoctorate in infmmation systems equates to a U.S. doctorate in computer science.
The Director issued a written notice of intent to deny (NOID) the petition. The NOID states: The beneficiary has the foreign equivalent of a Doctorate [as required by the labor certification];however,thefieldofstudyisnotComputerScience. Sincenoalternate field of study is listed as acceptable on [the labor certification], the beneficiaiy's Doctorate in Information Systems does not meet the required qualifications.
In response, the Petitioner asserted that, consistent with the requirements of the offered position, the evaluation states the Beneficiary's possession o f the foreign equivalent o f a U.S. doctorate in computer science. ThePetitioneralsosubmittedanotherevaluationfromadifferentevaluatorreachingthesame conclusion.
Inaddition,partH.14ofthelaborcertification,"Specificskillsandotherrequirements,"statesthatthe positionrequires experience using certain skills and technologies. also indicates that the Petitioner will not accept an alternate field ofstudy. p. 3 I
I
I
TheDirectorcorrectlydeniedthepetition. Onthelaborcertification,thePetitionerlistedtheminimum requirements of the offered position as a doctorate degree in "Computer Science" and stated that the companywouldnotacceptadegreeinanalternatefieldofstudy. TheBeneficiary'sl Idiploma plainly states her receipt of a doctorate degree in "Information Systems." Part H.9 of the labor certification allows a foreign degree to equate to a U.S. doctorate degree. Part H. 7, however, does not pe1mit a doctorate in a field other than 'Computer Science," as the Petitioner specified that no alternate field of study was acceptable. The Petitioner allowed qualifying experience in an occupation other thanthe offeredposition. Butthecompanydidnotsimilarlystateits acceptanceofadegreeinanother fieldofstudy. Also,onthelaborcertification,theBeneficiaryattestedtoherpossessionofadegree in "Computer Science." Because the record shows the Beneficiary received a doctorate in "Information Systems" rather than in "Computer Science," the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary meets the minimum educational requirements o f the offered position.
On appeal, the Petitioner again asserts that the evaluations demonstrate the Beneficiary's possession of the foreign equivalent of a U.S. doctorate in computer science. As the evaluations acknowledge, however, the Beneficiary's diploma plainly states her receipt of a doctorate in "Information Systems," not in the requisite field of "Computer Science."
Even if we disregarded the plain language of the Beneficiary's diploma, the evaluations would not establish her credential's equivalencyto a U.S. doctorate in computer science. The first evaluation states that, based on the Beneficiary's coursework, academic credits, years of study, grades, and diploma, she received the equivalent of a U.S. doctorate degree. Citing "the credibility" of the Iuniversity the Beneficiary attended and her hours of academic coursework, the evaluation further states her specific attainment of the equivalent of a U.S. doctor of philosophy degree in computer science. The evaluation, however, does not explain how a Ph.D. in "Infmmation Systems" equates to one in "Computer Science." The evaluationmentionsthe Beneficiary's "specialized studies in Information Systems, and related areas" and her dissertation, entitled I I t But the evaluation does not establish that the doctoral courses and practical studies completed by the Beneficiary in the field of information systems favorably compare to the curriculum of a U.S. doctoral program in computer science.
Similarly, the second evaluation reaches its conclusion without addressing how the Beneficiary's doctorate in "Information Systems" equates to a U.S. Ph.D. in "Computer Sciefce" The eya)uatj: states that the Beneficiary's coursework in information systems and her thesis in I I"comprise the required curriculum for a candidate seeking a university degree from an accredited institution of higher education in the United States." The evaluation, however, does not compare the doctoral curriculum in information systems that the Beneficiary completed to a U.S. doctoral curriculum in computer science. Some U.S. universities treat information systems and computer science as separate fields of study. See, e.g., Univ. of Kansas, "IT vs. Computer Science vs. Information Systems," https://it.eecs. ku.edu/bsit/it-vs-computer-science-vs-information-systems; Fairmont State Un iv., "Differences between IS, CS, and IT," https://www.fairmontstate.edu/fi1es/u205/fi1es/IS_CS_IT.pdf (both last visited Mar. 12, 2021 ). The evaluations submitted by the Petitioner neither address perceived differences between information systems and computer science nor explain how a degree in one can equate to a degree in the other. The conclusory evaluations therefore would not demonstrnte p. 4 the Beneficiary's possession ofthe foreign equivalent ofa U.S. doctorate degree in the required field. See Matter ofCaron Int'/, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (allowing the immigration service to reject or give lesser evidentiary weightto expert testimony that conflicts with other evidence or "is in any way questionable").
The Petitioner also submits letters from professors at thel Iuniversity that issued the Beneficiary's degree. The letters, on the stationery of the university's "Faculty of Computers & Artificial Intelligence," state that information systems constitutes a concentration, or major, within the field of computer science. One letter states: "[T]he Computer Science field covers the areas of Information Systems, Software Engineering, Computer Architecture, Artificial Intelligence and others. Nevertheless, [the Beneficiary's] doctorate certificate states the main thesis specialization domain, namely, Infonnation Systems. Yet, this specialization falls under the Computer Science domain." AnotherletterstatesthattheBeneficiary'sdegree"isinComputerScience,thecertificate showingonlyhermajorwithinthatdiscipline." AletterfromaU.S.professorofelectricalengineering and computer science asserts that ''degree nomenclature can often be different in International institutions. In particular, many universities identify the field ofspecialization. In [the Beneficiary's] case, her degree certificate states her specialization, which is within, and a part of Computer Science."
The letters, however, are not specific enough to demonstrate the Beneficiary's possession ofa Ph.D. in computer science. The letters generally describe information systems as a concentration within the fieldofcomputerscience.Support letters generic or unsupported Butthelettersdonotspecificallyestablish"InformationSystems"asasub- fieldof"ComputerScience"attheuniversitythatissuedtheBeneficiary'sdegree. Additionally,the Petitioner had a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence in response to the Director's NOID. We therefore decline to consider the letters on appeal.Evidence submitted too late See Matter o fSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 564,566 (BIA 1988) (baning consideration of evidence on appeal where a party received prior notice of required materials and a reasonable opportunity to provide them).
ThelaborcertificationapplicationspecificallyaskedthePetitioner: "Isthereanalternatefieldofstudy that is acceptable?" Bound by regulation to list its "actual minimum requirements for the job opportunity," see 20 C.F.R. § 656. l 7(i)(l), the Petitioner did not indicate its acceptance of any field but "Computer Science."
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's possession of an educationaldegreeinthefieldofstudyrequiredbytheofferedposition. Wewillthereforeaffirmthe petition's denial.
Ability to Pay the Proffered Wage
Although unaddressed by the Director, the record also does not establish the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage of the offered position. A petitioner must demonstrate its continuing ability to pay a proffered wage, from a petition's priority date until a beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). Evidence of ability to pay must generally include copies of annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. Id.
The labor certification states the proffered wage of the offered position ofcomputer research scientist as $68,000 a year. As previously indicated, the petition's priority date is April 5, 2019.
At the time of the petition's decision, regulatory required evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay theprofferedwagein2019wasnotyetavailable. ThePetitionersubmittedacopyofitsfederalincome tax return for 2018, which the Director used in determining the company's ability to pay. Contratyto 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2), the record lacks copies of the Petitioner's annual report, federal tax return, or audited financial statements for 2019, the year of the petition's priority date. The record therefore does not establish the Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage from the petition's priority date onward.
Regulatory required evidence ofthe Petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage in 2019 should now beavailable. Thus,inanyfuturefilingsinthismatter,thePetitionermustsubmitcopiesofanannual report, federal tax return, or audited financial statements for 2019 and, if available, 2020. The Petitioner may also provide additional evidence of its ability to pay, including proof of any wages it paid the Beneficiary in relevant years or materials supporting the factors stated in Matter ofSonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612, 614-15 (Reg'l Comm'r 1967).
Conclusion
The record does not establish the Beneficiary's possession ofan educational degree in the field of study required for the offered position. We will therefore affinn the petition's denial.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.