dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Information Systems

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 10, 2024 In Re: 31682779 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified nonimmigrant 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Beneficiary was qualified to undertake the duties of a specialty occupation. The matter 
is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for classification 
as an H-lB nonimmigrant worker must possess a license if it is required for the occupation, have 
earned a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty related to the job duties, or have earned the 
equivalent of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty related to the job duties based on 
having experiences in the specialty equivalent to the completion of the degree and recognition of 
expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
The supplementing regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) restate the statute and require meeting 
one of four criteria 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 certificate 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) provides five methods by which a petitioner can satisfy 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4): 
(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 result of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special credit programs 
such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or Program on Noncollegiate 
Sponsored Instruction (PONS!); 
(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 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 experiences in areas related to the specialty and that the noncitizen 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 [non-citizen] lacks ... .It must be clearly demonstrated that the [non-citizen's] training 
and/or work experience included the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge 
required by the specialty occupation; that the [non-citizen'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 [non-citizen] has recognition of expertise in the specialty evidence by at 
least one type of documentation such as: 
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 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation 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 [non-citizen] in professional publications, trade journals, 
books, or major newspapers; 
(iv) Li censure 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 important to note 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. Furthermore, by the clear terms of the rule, experience will 
merit a positive determination only to the extent that the record of proceedings establishes all 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Long-standing legal standards require that the Director first determine whether the proffered position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation and then move to determine whether the 
Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant petition was filed. Cf.Matter 
of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). The Director has concluded that 
the proffered position here is a specialty occupation, and we see no error in that determination. But 
upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation under section 2 l 4(i)(2) of the 
Act and the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). The record does not contain sufficient 
material, relevant, or probative evidence of the Beneficiary's qualifications to perform the duties ofa 
specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner claims the Beneficiary earned a bachelor's degree in commerce from the 
I I in India. The record contains a document--J 
from a director, board of examinations and evaluation, from the certifying the 
Beneficiary passed the "M.F.M (Third Year)(Sem-II)(CBSGS) Rev Degree Examination" and "grade 
cards" reflecting participation in a master's in financial management program at the I I 
I I But the record does not contain a degree certificate or a provisional degree certificate 
reflecting the Beneficiary earned a master's in financial management from the 
The record also contains three advisory opinion evaluations evaluating the Beneficiary's combined 
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 renderthe type ofopinion 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 
education and work experience, one of which was submitted by the Petitioner in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) and two that have been submitted with this appeal. Dr. C=:J 
I I of I I under the auspices of Morningside Evaluations concluded the 
Beneficiary's education and experience combination equaled a U.S. bachelor of science degree in 
computer information systems. With its appeal the Petitioner submits advisory opinion evaluations 
from Dr. of I I and Dr.I Iof I I 
I I which conclude the Beneficiary's education and experience combination equated to a 
bachelor of science degree in information systems and computer information systems respectively. 
The record further contains three co-worker affidavits attesting to the Beneficiary's work experience. 
The evaluations submitted by the Petitioner are also accompanied by either the evaluation writer's 
curriculum vitae; a self-authored statement of "expertise," letter(s) from their employing institutions 
attesting to their authorization to grant college-level credit or training and/or work experience in the 
specialty at an accredited college or university which has a program for granting such credit based on 
an individual's training/work experience, and/or documentation either from an internal policy 
document or printed from publicly available internet sources describing the institution's policy for 
granting academic credit. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude the evidence contained in the record does not satisfy any of the 
regulatory criteria required to demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualifications to perform the duties of a 
specialty occupation. 3 The record does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C)(]) because the 
Beneficiary does not possess a U.S. degree. It does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2) 
because the Beneficiary's foreign degree alone is not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree required 
by the occupation. And it does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(3) because there is no 
indication the Beneficiary holds an unrestricted State license, registration, or certification which 
authorizes them 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 pathway to approval. 
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)(])-(5) as mentioned above. The record, 
however, satisfies none of the alternative methods. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(]) requires that an evaluation of education and work 
experience be written by an official with 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 based on an individual's training and/or work experience. Dr. I I opinion is accompanied 
by two letters from officials at his employer, attesting to Dr. I I authority 
to issue credit for relevant work experience where appropriate. The letters are identical in every way 
3 The Director concluded, based on an examination of the Department of Labor (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(the Handbook), that the Petitioner's proffered software developer position was a specialty occupation because its 
requirement for a bachelor's degree in computer science related field of study cones ponded with information contained in 
the Handbook stating software developers "typically need a bachelor's degree in computer and information technology or 
a related field." See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Software 
Developers, Quality Assurance Analysts, and Testers (Apr. 17, 2024), https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and­
information-technology/software-developers.htm. 
4 
other than the letterhead and signature blocks. Most specifically, the content of the submitted letters 
conflicts with public information from I Iwhich makes no provision for credit to 
be authorized based on work experience. I Iper their public transfer credit policy 
only awards credit for academic work completed at other academic institutions and not for work 
experience or training. Examples of sources listed in the policy from which _______ 
may accept credit are accredited institutions, foreign universities, U.S. military credit for approved job 
and educational experience and miscellaneous sources such as internships, and nontraditional learning 
experiences. Work experience is not mentioned or provided for. Moreover, the olic states that the 
credit may or may not apply for the purposes of graduation from re ardless of 
the number of credits transferred. See generally Transfer Credit - _______ - Modem 
Campus Catalog, https:/l l.edu/content.php?catoid=35&navoid=26574. This conflict raises 
doubt about whether the writer is authorized to grant credit based on training and/or work experience. 
The record of proceeding does not contain material, relevant, or probative evidence addressing this 
discrepancy. 
And the advisory opinion from Dr. I lofl is similarly unpersuasive. Dr. 
grounds their eligibility to render their opinion evaluating the Beneficiary's education and 
experience in their purported authorization to grant college-level credit on behalf of their employer 
I Specifically, Dr.I I refers to their authorization to grant college-level under 
I IExperiential Leaming Assessment (ELA) program. However, inconsistencies in the 
record cast doubt on whether Dr.I I is in fact authorized to grant college-level credit under the 
program they specify. Undated documentation submitted in the appeal and present in the record states 
that ELA program awards limited (15 or 36 credit hours depending on degree 
category) college-level credits for "college-level learning that has been attained outside of a credit­
bearing institution." The record reflects that ELA eligibility is limited to adult students over the age 
of 24 accepted into a degree program atl Iafter a period in the workforce of about 3-5 
years concurrent with doing volunteer work, being active in political campaigns, performing in public 
or being "responsible for training programs or written company manuals." An individual seeking 
credit under the ELA program prepares and submits a portfolio documenting their eligibility for the 
credit based on their experiential learning. However, publicly available! JELA program 
information in the I I Student Handbook states that credit only "may be applied to the 
following degrees: Bachelor of Science in Professional Studies, Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies, 
Bachelor of Science in Professional Computer Studies, and Bachelor of Business Administration in 
Business Studies." Seel IStudent Handbook, Experiential Leaming Assessment (ELA), 
https ://www edu/ student-handbook/ academic-and-related-support -services/experiential­
leaming-assessmehttps: //www edu/ student-handbook/ academic-and-related-support-
services/ experiential-leaming-assessment -ela. This list does not include the systems bachelor of 
science in information systems to which Dr. I I equated the Beneficiary's education and 
experience. So, it is not apparent whether Dr.I lis authorized to grant college-level credit. 
The letter of I I dean of the graduate school at ___________ 
attests that Dr. I the writer of an evaluation in favor of the Beneficiary's educational 
equivalency, has "the authority to make determinations with respect to the appropriateness of a 
candidate's academic preparation and/or work experience." But the record contains printouts 
accompanying the evaluation from the I IGraduate Course and 
Credit Regulations Catalog. The printouts do not describe any program or method by which work 
5 
experience is accepted or evaluated for credit towards matriculation at the university. The sole options 
contained in the printout are credit transfer for traditional classroom instruction at other institutions 
and cooperative education programs which "integrat[ e] periods of academic study with periods of 
paid, professional work." Cooperative education programs require an individual to be a full-time 
student at the institution. 
In sum, the evaluations the Petitioner submitted do not satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) to establish the Beneficiary's qualifications under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)( 4). 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 ofSea, Inc., 9 I&N Dec. 817,820 (Comm'r 1988). We exercise that discretion 
here and find that the evaluations the Petitioner submitted do not satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(l). 
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 tum 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). 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-lB 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). 
III. 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. 
6