Date of Decision: April 22, 2016
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 Advanced Degree Professional
Field of Expertise: Software Development
Petitioner Information
Profession: Senior Software Developer
Field: Computer Science (applied)
Nationality: Indian
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The beneficiary has a master’s degree from India.
The beneficiary has substantial professional experience.
Criteria Not Met:
The beneficiary’s degree is not in one of the specified fields of study required (computer science, engineering, MIS, or mathematics).
The recruitment and labor certification process did not indicate that a degree in computer applications was acceptable.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner aimed to employ the beneficiary as a senior software developer, but his educational qualifications did not meet the specified requirements in the labor certification.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The appeal emphasized that the beneficiary’s master’s degree in applied computer science (or computer applications) was comparable to a U.S. master’s degree in a relevant field. However, this argument was not accepted because the labor certification did not list computer applications as an acceptable field of study.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided educational credentials, including the beneficiary’s diploma and transcripts. Additional documentation was submitted, such as an evaluation of the beneficiary’s educational credentials, job postings, recruitment reports, and other supporting materials.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary inconsistency was that the field of study (computer applications) did not match the fields listed in the labor certification (computer science, engineering, MIS, or mathematics).
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Not specifically mentioned in the provided summary.
Business Plan:
Not specifically mentioned in the provided summary.
Advisory Letter:
The petitioner submitted evaluations and supplemental letters from experts to argue that the beneficiary’s master’s degree in applied computer science was equivalent to a U.S. master’s degree in a related field.
Other Supporting Documentation:
Included the Application for Prevailing Wage Determination, internal and external job postings, and recruitment reports.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed, and the petition was denied.
Reasoning:
The decision was based on the fact that the beneficiary’s educational qualifications did not meet the specific requirements outlined in the labor certification. The petitioner did not establish that a degree in computer applications was an acceptable alternative to a degree in computer science, engineering, MIS, or mathematics.
This summary provides an overview of the decision process and the key points considered in the appeal review. The denial was primarily due to the mismatch between the beneficiary’s field of study and the specified requirements in the labor certification .
