dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Information Systems

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 31, 2024 In Re: 31306753 
Appeal of California 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding 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 material, 
relevant, or probative evidence of the Beneficiary's qualifications to perform the duties of a specialty 
occupation. 
The Petitioner claims the Beneficia earned a bachelor's de ree in chemist from 
India. The record also contains five affidavits, two of which were executed by persons employed at 
the Beneficiary's purportedly current employer. The record also contains three advisory opinion 
evaluations evaluating the Beneficiary's combined education and work experience, one of which was 
submitted by the Petitioner in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) and two of which 
have been submitted with this appeal. Dr. ____________ under the auspices of 
Morningside Evaluations concluded the Beneficiary's education and experience combination equaled 
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 
I 
a U.S. bachelor of science degree in computer information systems. With its appeal the Petitioner 
submits advisory opinion evaluations from Dr.I I and Dr.I 
___________ both of which conclude the Beneficiary's education and experience 
combination equated to a bachelor of science degree in computer information systems. 
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. 
At the outset, we draw attention to the evidence of the Beneficiary's work experience the Petitioner 
submitted into the record of proceeding here and was relied upon by the evaluators in formulating their 
advisory opinion and evaluation. The most relevant documentation of the Beneficiary's work 
experience consists of two affidavits from individuals who served as their manager at their purportedly 
current employer, in the role of Team Leader from December 12, 2012 to 
current. But the affidavits conflict with other evidence in the record, raising doubts that meaningfully 
reduce their materiality, relevance, and probity. Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's evidence 
may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Those shortcomings similarly reduce the 
materiality, relevance, and probity of the testimony from Drs . __________ because 
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 corresponded 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 
their reliance upon those affidavits to arrive at the conclusions in their advisory opinion evaluations 
regarding the Beneficiary's qualifications. 
Both affidavits the Petitioner and Beneficiary submit into the record, and relied upon by the evaluation 
writers, manifest inconsistencies in the expression of the start date of employment. The affiants in 
both affidavits testify that the Beneficiary commenced work with I Ion 
December 12, 2012. But an unsigned employment verification letter from al I 
Human Resources Department representative indicates the Beneficiary commenced their employment 
with them on December 17, 2012. 
The inconsistent statements relating to the Beneficiary's period of employment are not limited to the 
Beneficiary's commencement of employment. The inconsistencies bleed over to when, or even if, the 
Beneficiary continued employment with at at the time the affidavits and 
evaluations were written. For example, both affidavits were executed on September 30, 2023. One 
affiant testifies that the Petitioner's employment continues uninterrupted. But the other affiant testifies 
to the Beneficiary's employment until August 2, 2023. Whilst this may be explained as coinciding 
with the cessation of that particular affiant' s employment with ________ it does not 
explain why Dr.I I evaluation concluded that the Beneficiary's specific employment with D 
_______ as a manager concluded in February 2023 and continued as a team leader 
subsequently. There is no indication in the record that the Beneficiary has ever held the title of 
manager with ________ 
As stated above, the Petitioner provided an unsigned employment verification letter from 
I !Human Resource Department Representative. The letter does not describe the duties the 
Beneficiary performed or performs with ________ And there is no explanation 
supporting why the letter does not describe the Beneficiary's employment duties or why they would 
be missing. The Petitioner has not demonstrated the unavailability of the Beneficiary's work 
experience description in the employment verification letter with material, relevant, or probative 
evidence in the record. This omission takes on a level of significance in light of the other 
inconsistencies identified here. For example, there is a discrepancy in the Beneficiary's identified job 
title in the affidavits submitted and the employment verification letter submitted by I I 
I I Both affiants testify that the Beneficiary held or holds the title of team leader during his 
employment with But the employment verification letter from I II I adds "- QC" to the Beneficiary's job title. It is not sufficiently clarified in the record 
what this addition signifies. Elsewhere in the record, " - QC" appears to refer to quality control. The 
Beneficiary's employment as a team leader is germane to an evaluation of whether they have sufficient 
work experience in the specialty of the offered job, software development, such that the experience's 
combination with their educational credentials provides them with the body of theoretical and practical 
knowledge in the required computer science or related specialty to perform the proffered job's duties. 
It is not adequately apparent in the record based on the description of the Beneficiary's activities 
contained in the affidavits that the work they performed ("membership" in IT projects, "validation," 
"involved [in] data quality processes," and "[g]ood team player in understanding business needs") is 
in areas related to the computer science specialty the Petitioner identifies as a minimum requirement 
for entry to its proffered job of software engineer. In light of this ambiguity and vagueness, the "-
QC" addition to the job title raises reasonable questions as to whether the job duties are in a specialty 
5 
I 
other than the computer science specialty the Petitioner requires as a minimum for entry to its proffered 
position. 
Moreover, even if we were to set aside our concerns about the evidence the Petitioner submitted to 
support the Beneficiary's work experience, we would still find the letters from Drs.l 
and I I unpersuasive. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) 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 
other than the letterhead and signature blocks. Most specifically, the content of the submitted letters 
conflicts with public information from I lwhich makes no provision for credit to 
be authorized based on work experience. I I per 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 policy 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://catalog . ________________ 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 rendering Dr. I I opinion insufficient evidence to 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). 
And the advisory opinion from Dr. _____________ is similarly unpersuasive. 
Like Dr. Dr. I I also relied upon the inconsistent and "secondary" work experience 
evidence the Petitioner submitted to formulate their advisory opinion evaluation. As we have 
discussed above, we harbor doubts about the sufficiency of this evidence. Additionally, Dr.
I I employer, describes three discrete methods by which a matriculated
I _ student can seek college-level credit. I _ may provide college-
level credit for direct credit transfers, prior learning assessment (PLA) portfolios, professional 
certifications or designations, or "other options." Dr. I I advisory opinion evaluation does 
not specify under what category they evaluated the Petitioner's credentials and work experience. But 
the printouts supporting Dr. I I advisory opinion evaluation contain a description of I I 
I IPLA portfolios. So we conclude the applicable manner of evaluating the Beneficiary's 
qualifications and eligibility for credit at I I would be through the PLA portfolio 
4process. Whilst Dr. I I advisory opinion evaluation discusses the affidavit format evidence 
4 Whilst the materials refer to "other options" the evidence in the record does not identify or describe any "other options" 
6 
I 
I 
of the Beneficiary's work experience that we have previously described as troublesome and also 
indicates that they reviewed the Beneficiary's degree certificate, they do not identify or list review of 
any other documentation that would ordinarily be contained in a PLA portfolio, such as a resume, 
narrative essay, or other supporting evidence. Nor does Dr. I I advisory opinion evaluation 
identify how the Beneficiary's work experience aligns with the learning objective of specified related 
academic courses and programs to the course of study and degree they are equating the Petitioner's 
education and experience to. Moreover, ______ states that their PLA portfolio can result 
in up to 75% of the credits required for an undergraduate degree, but not a full qualification as Dr. 
lhas concluded here. Dr. I I advisory opinion evaluation's conclusions appear to 
conflict with the credit granting process _____ has described for awarding credit for prior-
college level learning gained outside the traditional classroom. So, Dr. I Iadvisory opinion 
evaluation is insufficiently material, relevant, or probative to establish the Beneficiary's qualification 
under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(]). 
Dr. I Iemployer, appears to be an accredited university without 
a program to grant college-level credit for work experience. The letter from Dr. _____ 
I executive dean, industrial enterprise and dean of engineering attests to the existence of a 
program to grant credit to students for specific industry related experience and training. But there is 
no corroborating evidence in the record to support Dr. I I assertions. Moreover, publicly 
available sources contradict those letters. See generally College Credit for Life & Work Experience, 
https://www.l ledu/adult-degree/prior-leaming-credit.html. The publicly available source 
describes two methods by which a matriculated student can seek college-level credit, may 
provide college-level credit for professional training or "credit for life experience." 5 "life­
leaming" or "prior learning credit" appears to contemplate a scenario where an individual's non­
traditional experiences can be evaluated for the "lessons" that the experiences provided. Neither 
method provides an avenue for the evaluation of work experience as required by regulation. So, the 
evidence in the record does not sufficiently establish that has a program to grant college-level 
credit for work experience. And since does not appear to have a program for granting credit 
based on work experience it follows that the record is insufficient to establish Dr. I I as an official 
with authority to grant credit based on work experience. So, Dr. I !evaluation does not satisfy 
the requirements of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(]) 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 of 
Sea, 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)(]). 
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, 
aside from direct credit transfers. prior learning assessment (PLA) portfolios, and professional certifications or 
designations to pursue college-level credit. 
5 The Petitioner does not assert, nor does the record contain, applicable evidence of applicable documentation akin to "first 
aid training or real estate licensure" which could be evaluated under policy. 
7 
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. 
8