dismissed H-1B Case: Aircraft Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6842016 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 01, 2021 
The Petitioner, a contract air services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"aircraft engineer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position 
that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a 
minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for classification 
as an H-lB nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (l)(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states that 
a beneficiary must also meet one of the following criteria in order to qualify to perform services in a 
specialty occupation: 
(1) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States baccalaureate 
or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college 
or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes 
him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged 
in that specialty in the state of intended employment; or 
(4) Have education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience 
that is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree 
in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise in the specialty 
through progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 
Therefore, if a license is not required and if the beneficiary does not possess the required U.S. degree 
or its foreign degree equivalent, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary possesses both 
(1) education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience in the specialty 
equivalent to the completion of such degree, and (2) recognition of expertise in the specialty through 
progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
In order to equate a beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree, the provisions 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) require one or more of the following: 
(1) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for 
training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university 
which has a program for granting such credit based on an individual's training 
and/or work experience; 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special credit 
programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or Program 
on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials;1 
(4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recognized professional 
association or society for the specialty that is known to grant certification or 
1 The Petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credential evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 
2 
registration to persons in the occupational specialty who have achieved a certain 
level of competence in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required by the 
specialty occupation has been acquired through a combination of education, 
specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to the specialty and 
that the alien has achieved recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation as 
a result of such training and experience .... 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5): 
For purposes of determining equivalency to a baccalaureate degree in the specialty, 
three years of specialized training and/or work experience must be demonstrated 
for each year of college-level training the alien lacks . . . . It must be clearly 
demonstrated that the alien's training and/or work experience included the 
theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the 
specialty occupation; that the alien's experience was gained while working with 
peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the 
specialty occupation; and that the alien has recognition of expertise in the specialty 
evidenced by at least one type of documentation such as: 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two 
recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation;2 
(ii) Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or society 
in the specialty occupation; 
(iii) Published material by or about the alien in professional publications, trade 
journals, books, or major newspapers; 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a foreign 
country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significant contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
It is always worth noting that, by its very terms, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly 
for USCIS application and determination, and that, also by the clear terms of the rule, experience will 
merit a positive determination only to the extent that the record of proceedings establishes all of the 
qualifying elements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), including, but not limited to, a type of 
recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation. 
2 The term "recognized authority" means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or 
knowledge in that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). A recognized 
authority's opinion must state: (1) the writer's qualifications as an expert; (2) the writer's experience giving such opinions, 
citing specific instances where past opinions have been accepted as authoritative and by whom; (3) how the conclusions 
were reached; and (4) the basis for the conclusions supported by copies or citations of any research material used. Id. 
3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner's letter of support includes brief information regarding the Beneficiary's work history 
during the periods of 2000 to 2005, 2005 to 2009, 2009 to 2012, 2012 to 2016, 2014 to 2017, and 2016 
to the present. However, the record only contains corroborating information from employers regarding 
the Beneficiary's work history during the periods of September 2000 to August 2005, October 2005 
to October 2009, November 2009 to March 2012, "since 2011" (end date with that employer is 
unknown), May 2014 to September 2014, and 2016 to the present with the Petitioner . The record 
also contains two evaluations of the Beneficiary's work experience. of 
the University! landl I of-.-----.-~ University both found that the 
Beneficiary's work experience is equivalent to a U.S. bache or's egree in aeronautical engineering. 
We concur with the Director that this evidence does not satisfy any of the regulatory criteria set forth 
above. 
The record does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(1) because the Beneficiary does not possess 
a U.S. degree. It does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2) because the Beneficiary does not 
possess a foreign degree, and it does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(3) because there is no 
indication the Beneficiary holds and unrestricted State license, registration or certification which 
authorizes him to fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged in that specialty 
in the state of intended employment. This leaves 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) as the Petitioner's 
only remaining path. 
There are five alternative methods by which to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), and those 
methods are set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(1)-(5). The record, however, satisfies none of 
them. 
We disagree with the Petitioner's assertion that the evidence of record is sufficient to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(1).I l's evaluation does not satisfy this criterion. Though the 
two letters from I . regarding ~------~s credentials are 
acknowledged, we find them insufficient. As noted, the regulations specifically mandate that the 
evaluator possess the authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the 
specialty at an accredited college or university with a program for granting such credit. 
.___ ____ _.l's letters state that the University I I has programs that award credit based 
on professional work experience and that university professors, including~-----~ "can 
recommend the awarding of credit based on students' professional experience in the fields of ... 
Aeronautical Engineering, and related fields." The letters further state that .___ _____ ___. is 
experienced in evaluating whether coursework and professional work experience can be considered to 
have the equivalency of B.S. or M.S. level education in Engineering." L h letters do 
not indicate that.___ _____ ~·s authority to "recommend" the awarding of credit is equivalent 
to the authority to himself "grant" such credit, as would be required. 
The record contains information regarding the process by which the University! I awards 
credit based upon "life experience" or "work or other non-collegiate activities." It indicates that 
applicants may "translate their experience into credits atl I by validation through the national 
4 
CLEP examination (College-Level Examination Program) or credit-by-examination administered by 
academic departments" for a maximum of 30 hours of credit through examination. It further states 
that, regardless of the total number of transfer credits, students must complete at least their last 30 
credits at the University! l I Ion the other hand, purports to have 
credited the Beneficiary with a completed bachelor's degree in aeronautical engineering and does not 
state which specific courses the Beneficiary's work experience satisfies. In addition, we question 
whether the relatively brief letters regarding the Beneficiary's work experience contained in the record 
would actually satisfy the requirements of this program. 
Regardless, the lack of an analysis of the Beneficiary's work experience within the context in which 
the University! I actually awards college-level credit for work experience significantly 
diminishes the probative value ofl l's evaluation. For all of these reasons, we find 
his evaluation insufficient. 
Nor does 's evaluation satisfy this criterion. The letter froml J 
regarding 's credentials, though acknowledged, also does not state tha~._ __ ,...........I 
possesses the authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the 
._s_p_e-c1~a,..,t_y_,at an accredited college or university with a program for granting such credit. lnsteadc=] 
l's letter states that ·I I university allows students to receive credit for professional work ,.__ __ _, 
experience such as co-op and etc." and that professors, including~-------' "have the 
authority to recommend awarding credits based upon students' professional experiences." The letter 
further states that ,___ ______ __, reviews the academic and professional credentials of 
international students applications [sic], as well as prospective faculty for open positions in the 
Department, when his serving [sic] the search committee." I l's letter does not indicate that 
I l's authority to "recommend" awarding credits is equivalent to the authority to 
himself "grant" such credit, as would be required. 
A review of I !university's website calls this evaluation into question even further. According 
to the university's website, "transfer credit for non-college work will not be granted unless students 
can show proficiency by testing" and it appears that credit based on tests or examinations is limited to 
a combined 30 credit hours.3 ~ ______ _, on other hand, also purports to have credited the 
Beneficiary with a completed bachelor's degree in aeronautical engineering and does not state which 
specific courses the Beneficiary's work experience satisfies. Regardless, again, we question whether 
the relatively brief letters regarding the Beneficiary's work experience contained in the record and the 
lack of an analysis of such experience within the context in whichl !University actually awards 
college-level credit for work experience significantly diminishes the probative value of I I 
I Is evaluation. For all of these reasons, we find his evaluation also insufficient. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the authority to "recommend" credit and "grant" credit is the 
same, regardless of the language used. The Petitioner explains that it is the expert's 
"recommendation," in this case,___ ______ __,andl I that is required in order for the 
departments to grant, or not grant, college-level credit based on work experience. In other words, the 
professors' "recommendations" seem to serve as a necessary first step in order for their respective 
3 
._I .====L......::U..:..:;ni:...:..ve::..:..;rsity, Student Administrative Services, AP Credit Transfer Information 
https:/ student-administrative-services-sas/ap-credit-transfer-information (last visited Feb. 18, 2021). 
5 
departments to "grant" the credit. However, that is not sufficient, as it appears as though the ultimate 
decision to grant, or not to grant, the credit lies with those "departments" rather than with the 
professors themselves, and the language of the regulation is clear. The Petitioner submits a letter from 
Morningside Evaluations & Consulting stating that.___ ______ _.andl I "have long 
records of writing expert opinion letters that have been submitted to and accepted by USCIS as 
evidence in support of immigration applications." The letter also briefly outlines their experience and 
level of expertise within their fields and concludes that both Professors "should undoubtedly be 
considered recognized authorities and the above information should clarify any questions about 
whether past opinions have been accepted as authoritative." However, those are not the questions at 
issue here, and the Petitioner has not clearly demonstrated how such a "recommendation" is considered 
within the universities, particularly when both Professors have awarded a completed bachelor's degree 
to the Beneficiary, which is not authorized according to the universities. 
Furthermore, these two evaluations are practically identical to one another. While there may be a 
variant sentence or two, they share identical formats, identical descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
experience, and identical conclusions. Each author states the following at the end of his evaluation: 
The foregoing evaluation of [the Beneficiary] has been prepared and certified by me 
this twenty-[fifth or sixth] day of March 2018. Because of the positions I have held and 
hold at the above-mentioned university, I have the opportunity to evaluate the 
experience, training, and/or courses taken at other U.S. or international universities. 
The above letter is strictly my opinion and is not the opinion of any of the universities 
with which I am affiliated or any of its departments or affiliates. 
Though each individual states that his letter "is strictly my opinion," another individual apparently 
prepared them, which calls into question their independent and credible nature. In other words, we 
question the depth of the analysis contained in the letters given not only the deficiencies outlined above 
but also the fact that they appear to have been completed using "templates" provided by another party. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's submission of this questionable evidence calls into question the reliability 
of its remaining evidence. 
In addition to the material deficiencies noted above, we also find that both evaluations erroneously 
simplify the so-called "three-for-one" rule. As we noted above, the only section of the H-lB 
beneficiary-qualification regulations that provides for application of a three-for-one ratio is the 
provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). However, that provision reserves its application 
exclusively for USCIS agency-determinations. Further, that provision requires substantially more than 
simply equating any three years of work experience in a specific field to attainment of a year's worth 
of U.S. college credit in that field or specialty. In fact, the provision inserts a number of elements of 
proof into the experience and/or training equation that both evaluators have overlooked. 
We may, in our discretion, discount or give less weight to an evaluation of a person's work experience 
where that opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Matter of 
Sea, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). We exercise that discretion here and find that these 
evaluations do not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(1). 
6 
Nor is there sufficient evidence in the record to satisfy 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2), (3), or (4). 
We will therefore turn to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) which, as noted above, grants us the 
authority to make our own determination on the Beneficiary's qualifications. The record is not 
sufficient to satisfy that criterion either, as neither the evaluations, the documents accompanying them, 
nor any other part of the record of proceedings provides sufficient work-experience evidence for us to 
reasonably conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied at least one of the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v). 4 Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the evidence of the 
Beneficiary's work experience qualifies for recognition of any years of college-level credit by correct 
application of the H-1B beneficiary-qualification regulations' "three-for-one" standard. Therefore, 
based upon the findings articulated above, we conclude that the totality of the evidence regarding the 
Beneficiary's foreign education and work experience does not satisfy any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) and (h)(4)(iii)(D). 
111. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 Though acknowledged, the brief letters regarding the Beneficiary's work experience lack the detail necessary to meet 
these requirements. 
7