Here is a just-issued clarification of the guidelines:
Liaison Committee Clarifies Recent NSC Comments on Degree Equivalency for EB-2 I-140s
Cite as "AILA Info Net Doc. No. 07060773 (posted Jun. 7, 2007)"
June 7, 2007 - In response to numerous inquiries received from attorneys and the growing evidence of possible misinterpretations of the Q&A involving EB-2 degree equivalency issues from the April 12, 2007 meeting at NSC (InfoNet Doc. No. 07060161, posted June 1, 2007), the NSC Liaison Committee wishes to add the following clarifying commentary to NSC's responses to Questions 1 and 2 dealing with degree equivalency for EB2 I-140 petitions:
1. Please note that the Q&As for Questions 1 and 2 are worded precisely and should be read carefully; attorneys should avoid paraphrasing or rewording both the questions and the answers, as this could lead to erroneous conclusions and expectations. Attorneys should not oversimplify NSC's answers because that can lead to misinterpretation and disappointment. Attorneys should also clearly understand that any attempt to bend or stretch NSC's answers to fit a given case is a calculated risk. The problem with degree equivalency "rules," and the main reason that simple interpretive rules for degree equivalency have not been articulated to date, is that there are many factors involved that make each case unique. For this reason, NSC has avoided stating blanket rules and has carefully phrased its answers in conditional terms. Examples of what can go wrong here are: there are many versions of post graduate diplomas, some are more credible than others; not all petitions contain complete documentation; some postgraduate diplomas are considered equivalent to master's degrees, some are not; etc. As always, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets the requirements for the position as stated on the approved labor certification.
2. NSC has not reversed its position on requiring single source degrees for bachelor's degree equivalency. Questions 1 and 2 are the best available expressions of NSC's interpretation of what is required to demonstrate equivalency of a foreign master's degree to a U.S. master's degree for EB-2 only. These interpretations should not be applied to bachelor's degree equivalency issues. The difference is that for master's degrees, NSC evaluates both the foreign master's degree and the underlying education, and will accept equivalent education for the bachelor's degree; whereas if a position requires a bachelor's degree with no specification of equivalency, NSC will require that the beneficiary have a U.S. bachelor's degree or single source foreign equivalent degree, not foreign equivalent education.
3. The most ambiguous and hence the riskiest situation is the 3 year bachelor's degree followed by a 2 year master's degree. NSC has left open the possibility that this could qualify for EB-2, but the burden of proof is on the petitioner to make that demonstration. Attorneys should not assume that the usual transcripts plus a conclusory credential evaluation will be sufficient. NSC generally accepts the view that a bachelor's and master's program together will take 6 years, and therefore, most 3 year bachelor programs with a 2 year master's degree will not qualify for EB-2. However, NSC did agree that if there is specific evidence in a particular case that the master's degree is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree, the evidence would be considered.
NSC's responses to Questions 1 and 2 are the clearest statements of the NSC's degree equivalency policies that have been offered to date. As with any liaison Q&A, they are subject to change and reinterpretation at any time and without notice.
- NSC Liaison Committee
I have my LC certified with the below mentioned details: