dismissed H-1B Case: Chemical Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. hW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 062 52101 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: qFp ' '.' -I -1 
,%,, .=A : 44 LIL 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonidgrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(lS)(EI)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationa~lity Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 I BOl(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All materials 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 04 062 52101 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the noraimmigrant visa petition. The matter is now on 
appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner is a manufacturer of printed circuit boards. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
chemical engineer and to classify him as a nonimrnigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
section IOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Irmnigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101 
(a>( 15)(H>(i)(b>. 
The director denied the petition on the ground that the record failed to establish that the beneficiary is 
qualified to gerform*s"ervices in a specialty occupation and thereby eligible for M-1B classification. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(i)(2), provides that an alien must have the following 
credentials to be qualified to perform the services of a specialty occupation: 
(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 (I)(%) 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. 
As further explained in 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), an alien must meet one of the following criteria to 
qualify to perform the services of a specialty occupation: 
(I) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accreldited 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 
WAC 04 062 52101 
Page 3 
(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. 
For the purpose of deciding whether the beneficiary is qualified under 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) provides that the determination shall be based on one or more of the 
following: 
(I) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for 
training andlor 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; 
(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 [CIS] that the equivalent of the degree required 
by the specialty occup,ation 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. 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-Ievel training the alien lacks. For equivalence to an advanced (or 
Masters) degree, the alien must have a baccalaureate degree followed by at least 
five years of experience iin the specialty . . . . It must be clearly demonstrated that 
the alien's training andor work experience included the theoretical and practical 
application of specializedl 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 
WAC 04 062 52101 
Page 4 
1 occupation by at least two recognized authorities in the same specialty 
occupation; (ii) Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association 
or society ill 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 of proceeding before the APLO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) 
the director's request for evidence (WE); (3) the petitioner's response to the WE; (4) the notice of 
decision; and (5) Form I-290B, an appeal brief, and supporting materials. The AAO reviewed the record 
in its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is a manufacturer of printed circuit boards, in operation since 1987, which seeks to hire the 
beneficiary as a chemical engineer. In a letter accoinpanying Form 1-129 the petitioner indicated that the 
beneficiary is qualified for the position by virtue of a diploma in chemical engineering in April 1998 from 
K.J. Polytechnic Bharuch in Gujarat, India, and experience as a chemical engineer with an Indian 
petrochemicals company from October 1998 through December 2003. In response to the WE the 
petitioner submitted a "professional work experience evaluation report" authored by an assistant professor 
in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Florida International University (FIU) who, 
based on documentation of the beneficiary's academic coursework and work experience in the field of 
chemical engineering, concluded that the beneficiary's education and work experience are equivalent to a 
bachelor of science in chemical engineering from an accredited U.S. college or university. 
In his decision the director found that the beneficiary did not qualify to perform the services of the 
specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l) because he does not have a U.S. 
baccalaureate or higher degree, or under 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2) because he does not hold a 
foreign degree determined to be equival~ent to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree, or under 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(3) because he does not have an unrestricted state license to practice the specialty 
occupation. The director also determined that the beneficiary did not qualify to perform the services of 
the specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) because the record failed to establish that 
he had a combination of education, specialized training and progressively responsible work experience 
equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation. The evaluation report 
submitted in response to the WE was not an evaluation of the beneficiary's foreign education alone, as 
required to be considered as evidence of the beneficiary's U.S. degree equivalency under 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2 
(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3). Rather, it was an evaluation of the beneficiary's academic record and work experience, 
which must therefore have been authored by an official with authority to grant college-level credit for 
training and/or experience in areas related to the specialty in order to be considered as evidence of the 
beneficiary's U.S. degree equivalency under 8 C.F.R. 5 2 :4.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I). The director found that the 
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. 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 zccepted 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. $ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
WAC 04 062 52 10 1 
Page 5 
record failed to show that the evaluator was actually employed by FIU, that he was authorized by the 
university to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the field of chemical engineering, 
or that FKJ is an accredited academic institution. In the director's view, the petitioner also failed to show 
that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible work 
experience. For all of these reasons the director concluded that the beneficiary is ineligible for H-1B 
classification. 
On appeal counsel contends that evaluation report from the FIU professor ineets all of the regulatory 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. $ 214,2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I) and should be considered as credible evidence of the 
beneficiary's U.S. degree equivalency in the field of chemical engineering, thereby qualifying him to 
perform the services of the specialty occupation. Additional documentation has been submitted showing 
that FIU is an accredited institution and tha-the author of the evaluation report, is 
employed by FIU as a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. However, 
none of the documentation establishes that has the authority to grant college-level credit for 
training and/or experience in chemical engineering, or that FIU has a program for granting such credit. 
The only information provided on this matter is in a letter from FIU's Associate Dean of Engineering, Dr. 
which states that FIU "grants credit based on an individual's education, training aidlor 
work experience." The regulation requires that the institution have a program for granting credit based on 
an individual's training and/or work experience, without regard to prior education. As indicated in Dr. 
letter, FIU does not have such a program. 'letter also states 
professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering "with 
and recognize foreign transfers and work experience for credit granting purposes." The letter does not 
state that Dr. Nunoo is authorized to a~ward any credit in the Department of Chemical Engineering, 
however, so he would not be competent to assess the adequacy of the beneficiary's work experience in the 
field of chemical engineering and to render a credible evaluation for CIS that the beneficiary's work 
experience included the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in 
the field of chemical engineering. 
For the reasons discussed above, the documentation of record fails to meet the evidentiary requirements 
of 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I). It does not establish that Dr. Nunoo has the authority to grant 
college-level credit for training and/or experience in the beneficiary's specialty of chemical engineering, 
or that FIU has a program for granting college-level credit for training and/or experience. 
Nor does the record establish that the beneficiary has the equivalent of a U.S. degree in chemical 
engineering through a combination of education, specialized training, and/or work experience in the 
specialty occupation or related areas, and recognition of expertise therein, as required to meet the 
alternative qualifying criteria of the regullation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). The record indicates 
that the beneficiary earned a diploma in chemical engineering at K.J. Polytechnic in Bhamch, India, based 
on a series of courses and examinations completed between April 1996 and April 1998. According to the 
credentials evaluation report from Dr. Nunoo, the beneficiary's coursework in India is the equivalent of 
three years of undergraduate study in chemical engineering at a U.S. college or university. The record 
contains two letters from an Indian petrochemical company, dated October 1998 and December 2003, 
"he FIU website at www.fiu.edu, accessed on September 13, 2005, indicates that FIU has a program of accepting 
transfer credits for academic courses completed at other universities or colleges, but does not indicate that the 
university has a program for granting credit baaed on work experience or training. 
WAC 04 062 52101 
Page 6 
indicating that the beneficiary worked for the company throughout that time as a chemical engineer. That 
time period would equal approximately one and three-quarters years of college-level training in chemical 
engineering (in determining equivalency to a baccalaureate degree in the specialty the regulation provides 
that three years of specialized experience equal one year of college education), and the work experience - 
as reflected in the duties of the position - may be viewed as including the theoretical and practical 
application of specialized knowledge required by the specialty occupation. There is no evidence in the 
record, however, that the beneficiary's experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or 
subordinates who have a degree or its elquivalent in the specialty occupation, or that the beneficiary has 
documented recognition of expertise in the specialty, as required under the regulation. Accordingly, the 
beneficiary's work experience cannot be counted for the purpose of determining degree equivalency 
under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). The AAO concludes, therefore, that the beneficiary's education 
and work experience combined is not e~quivalent to a U.S. degree in chemical engineering or a related 
specialty. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the services of the specialty occupation. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof in these proceedings. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the AAO will not disturb the director's decision 
denying the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.