dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13856437 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker (H-1B) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 10, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. 1 The H-1B 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary was qualified to perform the services of the specialty occupation under INA 
section 214(i)(2). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was in error. In these 
proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 2 We review the questions in this matter de nova. 3 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIAL TY OCCUPATION 
As a preliminary matter, we note the Director did not address whether the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. In accordance with long-standing legal standards, we must first determine 
whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, 
whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonirnmigrant visa petition was 
filed. 4 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background 
only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty 
occupation]."). 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. 5 
B. Analysis 
The Petitioner, a software, services, and internet technologies company, states the Beneficiary will be 
employed as a "software engineer." It designates the proffered position on the labor condition 
application (LCA) as a standard occupational classification (SOC) code 15-1132 "Software 
Developer, Applications." 6 The Petitioner states the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree 
or equivalent in computer science, engineering, or a related field and provides the following duties: 7 
5 See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a specific 
specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular position"). 
6 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing 
wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. See Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
7 While we will not quote the entire description for the sake of brevity, we have reviewed and considered it in full. 
2 
• Design and verify product features for [Petitioner]'s computer software, systems, 
and services. - 20% 
• Support design reviews define interfaces between code modules and apply existing 
technology to determine whether code is ready for release by considering 
performance, maintainability, and reliability. - 30% 
• Contribute to technical design and feature implementation for [Petitioner]' s next 
generation technology with the application of data analytics and data modeling. -
30% 
• Employ [Petitioner's] computing principles related to feature design enabling the 
development of solutions for simple code defects that impact feature areas, 
customer scenarios, and quality targets. - 20% 
In addition to these bullet point duties, the Petitioner added a description and examples of the tasks 
involved in each duty and explained how the tasks related to its business operations. The totality of 
the evidence establishes that the position falls within the designated occupation. 8 
Furthermore, we conclude that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the 
knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). The 
proposed duties, when reviewed within the context of the Petitioner's business operations, are 
sufficient to demonstrate that the duties of the position require a "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" attained through a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to 
the proffered position. The Petitioner has established that the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation as defined by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1184(i)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and (iii)(A)(4). 
Although the proposed position may be a "Software Developer, Applications" occupation on its face, 
the Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the specialty 
occupation by its own standards 9 or the standards set out at section 214(i)(2) of the Act and the 
regulations set out below. 
8 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Software Developers, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm (last visited Feb. 5, 2021 ); 
Occupational Information Network OnLine Summary Repolt for "15-1132.00 - Software Developers, Applications," 
https://www.onetonline.org/ Archive_ ONET-SOC _ 201 O _Taxonomy_ 09 _ 2020/link/summary/15-1132.00 (last visited 
Feb. 5, 2021). 
9 For example, the Petitioner submits a letter b,~ _______ PhD, Associate Professor of Computer Science and 
Information Systems atl O I University, who parses the proffered position's duties and ascribes concepts and 
knowledge from computer science and related fields relevant to the performance of those duties. 
3 
II. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
A. 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: 
(]) 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. 
If: as in here, the petitioner is relying on a combination of the beneficiary's education, specialized 
training, and/or progressively responsible experience to meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), the record must contain evidence that the education, specialized training 
and/or progressively responsible experience is equivalent to completion of a college degree in the 
specific specialty required by the specialty occupation. For purposes of paragraph 8 C.F.R. 
§214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), equivalence to a United States baccalaureate or higher degree shall mean 
achievement of a level of knowledge, competence, and practice in the specialty occupation that has 
4 
been determined to be equal to that of an individual who has a baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specialty. 
In order to determine equivalency, 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(4)(D) requires 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 Instruction (PONS!); 
(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; or 
(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. 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. 
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 
5 
authorities in the same specialty occupation; 10 
(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 m 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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to determine, 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. 
B. Analysis 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary holds a U.S. baccalaureate degree from an accredited college 
or university but the degree is not in a specialty directly related to the performance requirements of 
the proffered position. The Petitioner provides the Beneficiary's diploma and transcript, evidencing a 
bachelor's degree in business administration. Because the Beneficiary did not hold at least a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in computer science, engineering or a related field at the time of the petition's filing, 
the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary achieved the equivalent of such a degree by a combination 
of his academic and employment history, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)( 4).11 
10 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 ofopinion requested. See 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. 
11 In its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a list of courses taken by the 
Beneficiary in pursuit of his bachelor's in business administration degree and explained how the courses relate to the job 
duties, highlighting the Beneficiary's data analysis knowledge. To the extent the Petitioner is asserting that the 
Beneficiary's bachelor's in business administration degree qualifies under 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l), the record does 
not support this asse11ion. The highly specialized Jnow]edge rcessary to perform the duties of the position, according to 
the Petitioner's own standards, e.g. as described inLL. ___ _.'s analysis, is obtained via a bachelor's degree or higher in 
computer science, engineering, or a related field. The Beneficiary's transcript does not evidence computer science or 
engineering courses. If there were courses taken by the Beneficiary that would provide the requisite highly specialized 
knowledge derived from at least a bachelor's degree in computer science or engineering, this was not explained by the 
Petitioner and it is not self-evident. Furthermore, asserting the duties of the proffered position could be performed by an 
individual with an unspecialized bachelor's degree in business administration would undermine the specialized nature of 
the position. A general-purpose degree, without further specification, precludes a determination that the position involves 
6 
With respect to determining degree-equivalency, the record does not contain evidence of college-level 
equivalency examinations, special credit programs, or certification or registration from a nationally­
recognized professional association or society, which are relevant to establishing criteria 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2) , (4). Also, the record's evaluation documents of the Beneficiary's education 
are not from a credentials evaluation service, rendering criterion 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3) 
inapplicable . This leaves the first and fifth criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) for analysis. 
The Petitioner submits an evaluation rovided bvl IPhD, Professor of Computer 
Science and Information S stems a University inl I Submitted with the evaluation is 
a letter by the Dean ofthe.__ _____ --1School of Computer Science and Information Systems atD 
University. The dean states tha ....._____,University has a "program [] conducted in work study fashion 
for matriculated students" where "credit is granted to students for specific industry related experience 
and training." The dean adds that the professor "is experienced in evaluating relevant ... work 
experience of students to determine their academic equivalence" and "ha[s] the authority to grant 
college level credit based upon students[ '] foreign education and industry experience ." 
The professor states he bases his opinion on the position description, the Beneficiary's academic and 
work experience documentation, the Petitioner's support letter and the job description . However, the 
academic and work experience documentation included in the record are limited to the Beneficiary's 
diploma, transcript, and three employer letters. One letter evidences the Beneficiary's employment 
from June 2012 to March 2013 as a marketing analyst and lists four general duties he performed. The 
other two letters are from the same employer stating the Beneficiary was in its employ from March 
2013 to April 2018, first as a support engineer, then promoted to software developer. The letters do 
not clarify how many years the Beneficiary worked as a software developer and lists three duties he 
performed. Each letter states the Beneficiary performed progressively more responsible duties but do 
not support or explain the statements with details regarding the duties he performed and how they 
increased in responsibility. The letters also do not explain how the Beneficiary's work experience 
includes the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the specialty 
occupation. For this reason, the record does not support the professor's statements , for example, that 
the Beneficiary "demonstrated expertise in the field of Computer Science . .. by [his] progressively 
responsible career trajectory," "exhibit[s] a level of expertise that is at least comparable to that of a 
graduate of a domestic Computer Science undergraduate program," "has experience [] equivalent to 
no less than one year of academic coursework in the field of Computer Science" and "attained the 
equivalent of a US Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science." Nor is it clear where the 
professor obtained details regarding the Beneficiary's duties described in his opinion because he does 
not cite to the record or elsewhere. 
a "body of highly specialized knowledge" or requires the attainment of a bachelor' s degree in a "specific specialty." See 
Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147; see also Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Minn. 1999); Vision Builders, LLC v. 
USCIS, No. CV 19-3159-TJK, 2020 WL 5891546 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2020); Parzenn Partners v. Baran , No. 19-cv-11515-
ADB, 2019 WL 6130678 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 20l9);XiaoTong Liu v. Baran, No. 18-00376-NS , 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. 
Cal., Dec. 21 , 2018); 2233 Paradise Road, LLC v. Cissna, No. 17- cv- 01018- APG- VCF, 2018 WL 3312967 (D. Nev., 
July 3, 2018). 
7 
Furthermore, the professor does not provide details of how he assessed the Beneficiary's work 
experience and the record does not evidence the professor used similar standards to the university's 
credit granting program. According to printouts in the record,~University has requirements a 
student must meet to be granted credit under its "experiential learning" program. For example, the 
university awards credit based on students' ability to demonstrate that their experiences constitute 
college-level learning and they are encouraged to take a two-credit course on how to assemble an 
appropriate portfolio to meet the university's specifications for the program. This level of expected 
detail is inconsistent with the sparse letters the professor relies upon to base his opinion, as it is unclear 
whether the professor had sufficient documentation to make this evaluation regarding the 
Beneficiary's prior educational and work experience. In addition, according to the requirements, 
"experiential learning" is not assessed after a credit load of 96 credits to avoid duplication of credits, 
yet the professor makes his assessment after the Beneficiary has attained 180 credits without an 
explanation of his process for similarly avoiding duplication. As a result, the record does not establish 
the professor followed an equally rigorous process in determining the equivalency of the Beneficiary's 
experiences as required by the university, thereby minimizing the probative value of the professor's 
opinion regarding the beneficiary's qualifications. 12 It is the Petitioner's burden to establish that the 
Beneficiary's education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience is 
"equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty 
occupation." 13 The professor's evaluation, with its conclusory statements lacking analysis and support 
from the record, does not meet this burden. Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may 
undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. 14 
Thus, we do not find the requirements of 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I) have been met. 
For the reasons listed above, the record is also not sufficient to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
As noted above, the employer letters submitted to establish the Beneficiary's past work experience 
describe the Beneficiary's duties in three or four bullets and do not provide sufficient details to 
ascertain whether his work experience included the theoretical and practical application of specialized 
knowledge. The record does not include documentation demonstrating that the Beneficiary's 
experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who had a bachelor's 
degree, or its equivalent, in the specialty occupation. There is no information in the record establishing 
the breadth and depth of the Beneficiary's knowledge or his colleagues' knowledge. Moreover, 
claiming that the Beneficiary gained progressive experience, without detailing how the experience was 
gained is insufficient. 
Finally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) imposes a separate requirement to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary "has recognition of expertise in the specialty evidenced by at least one type of 
documentation" listed. However, the Petitioner has not provided evidence of the types of 
documentation listed in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v). Consequently, we cannot conclude 
12 See Matter of Caron Int "I, 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to accept or may give less 
weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable."). 
13 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). 
14 See Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
8 
that the Beneficiary's work experience is equivalent to at least a U.S. bachelor's degree in the specific 
specialty, based on the record. 
For the reasons outlined above, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary is 
qualified for a "Software Developer, Applications" specialty occupation position. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that more 
likely than not, the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the services of the specialty occupation under 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2). In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 15 The Petitioner has not met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
15 See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
9