dismissed H-1B Case: Business Systems Analyst

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 15 1 5 1027 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 2 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 151 51027 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will 
be denied. 
The petitioner is an application service provider to convention and conference organizers that seeks to employ 
the beneficiary as a full-time business systems analyst. The petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as 
a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 5 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the beneficiary is not qualified to perform the duties of a specialty 
occupation. On appeal, counsel submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(i)(2), states that an alien applying for classification as an H-1B 
nonimmigrant worker must possess full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is 
required to practice in the occupation, and completion of the degree in the specialty that the occupation 
requires. If the alien does not possess the required degree, the petitioner must demonstrate that the alien has 
experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and recognition of expertise in the 
specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), to qualify to perform services in a specialty occupation, an alien 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) 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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains, in part: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; 
(2) the director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a full-time business systems analyst. The petitioner's 
president indicated in a letter, dated April 28, 2004, that the beneficiary's education and work experience in 
the computer software industry qualifies her for the proffered position. 
WAC 04 151 51027 
Page 3 
The director found that the beneficiary was not qualified for the proffered position, which is that of a systems 
analyst, because the beneficiary's education, experience, and training were not equivalent to a bachelor's 
degree in computer science or information systems. On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the proffered 
position is that of a business systems analyst, and is not a computer systems analyst. Counsel states further 
that the industry requirement for a business analyst position is a bachelor's degree. Counsel submits job 
postings reflecting that a bachelor's degree in a computer- or business-related field, or an equivalent thereof, 
is acceptable for a business analyst position. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary is qualified to perform an 
occupation that requires a baccalaureate degree in a computer- or business-related field, or an equivalent 
thereof. The beneficiary does not hold a baccalaureate degree from an accredited U.S. college or university in 
any field of study, or a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a baccalaureate degree from a U.S. 
college or university in a computer- or business-related field of study. Therefore, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that the beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), equating the beneficiary's credentials to a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree shall be determined by one or more of the following: 
(I) 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 lnstruction (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which specializes in 
evaluating foreign educational credentials; 
(4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recognized professional association 
or society for the specialty that is known to grant certification or 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. 
The record contains an evaluation from a company that specializes in evaluating academic credentials. The 
evaluator concluded that the beneficiary possesses the equivalent of at least a bachelor's degree in chemistry 
from an accredited U.S. institution. This field of study, however, is not related to the proffered position. 
When CIS determines an alien's qualifications pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 214,2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), three years of 
specialized training andlor 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 
WAC 04 151 51027 
Page 4 
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 
1 authorities in the same specialty occupation ; 
(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. 
The record also contains two employment letters and three computer-training certificates. This documentation 
does not establish equivalence to a baccalaureate degree in a computer- or business-related field. The 
petitioner did not submit any independent evidence to illustrate how these training certificates relate to the 
completion of a baccalaureate degree in a computer- or business-related field. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Furthermore, one of the training certificates, which 
reflects 26 weeks of computer training in India, is dated September 9, 2002; information on the petition, 
however, indicates that the beneficiary entered the United States as an H-1B nonimmigrant on March 7,2002. 
The record contains no explanation for this inconsistency. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
incollsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's 
proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
The AAO now turns to the beneficiary's prior work experience, and whether it included the theoretical and 
practical application of specialized knowledge required by the specialty. As described by each employer, the 
beneficiary's duties did not appear to involve the theoretical and practical application of business systems 
analysis. One employer provides two letters, indicating in one that the beneficiary was employed as a 
Recognized authori~ 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. A recognized authority's 
opinion must state: (I) 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. 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
WAC 04 151 51027 
Page 5 
"programmer" and in the other, as a "software engineer." Again, the record contains no explanation for this 
inconsistency. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). The other employer indicates that the beneficiary performed 
the duties of a software trainee. Thus, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary's past work experience 
included the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, which in this 
case is business systems analysis. Furthermore, neither employer indicates that the beneficiary's work 
experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its 
equivalent in the specialty occupation. 
Finally, there is insufficient evidence that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise. 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of 
the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.