No. Describe the credential, issuing body and scope accurately. Do not convert one jurisdiction’s document into another’s permission through wording.
Retain the actual credential identity
Provide the evidence requested through the official immigration process. Any separate U.S. credential or licensing review should be documented as its own process, with its real outcome rather than an assumed equivalence.
A credentialing body's name can resemble one operating in a different jurisdiction without being connected to it, so identify the actual issuing authority by its full name and the jurisdiction that granted the credential rather than a shortened title that could be misread as referring to a different body. Describe precisely what the credential authorizes the holder to do, since two similarly named designations in different places can carry different scopes of practice even when the underlying profession sounds identical. Ask the issuing body directly to confirm, in writing, the exact scope of practice the credential covers, rather than relying on a general description found outside its own official materials.
Avoid assuming that translating a title into an equivalent English term also translates the legal authorization attached to it; a title can translate cleanly while the permission behind it does not transfer at all. Where a separate assessment or licensing review is underway for a different jurisdiction, document its actual current stage and outcome rather than treating an application in progress as an equivalent credential already held.