dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 25, 2024 In Re: 33420649 
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 nonirnrnigrant 
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 
file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in the specialty occupation under any of 
the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) . 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonirnmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
corning temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) .... " Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty 
occupation" as an occupation that requires the "theoretical and practical application of a body ofhighly 
specialized knowledge, and 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 section 214(i)(l) of the Act, but adds a non-exhaustive list 
of fields of endeavor. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the proffered position must meet one of four 
criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be read with 
the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation under section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 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. 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"). Lastly, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(I) states that an H-lB classification may be granted 
to a foreign national who "will perform services in a specialty occupation ... " (emphasis added). 
Accordingly, to determine whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation, we 
look to the record to ascertain the services the Beneficiary will perform and whether such services 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained 
through at least a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty or its equivalent. 
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. 588,560 (Comm'r 1988). The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) require that a beneficiary meet one of four criteria to qualify to perform services 
in a specialty occupation: 
(1) Hold a United States bachelor's degree or higher required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States bachelor's 
degree or higher 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 bachelor's degree 
or higher in the specialty occupation, and have recognition of expertise in the 
specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the 
specialty. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), equating a beneficiary's credentials to a United States 
bachelor's or higher degree under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)( 4) is determined by at least one of the 
following: 
(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 
(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; 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 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. 
By regulation, the Director is charged with determining whether the petition involves a specialty 
occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2). The Director 
may request additional evidence in the course of making this determination. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). 
In addition, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to 
be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the position of "application analyst." On the labor 
condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner classified the proffered 
position to be in the occupational classification of "Computer Systems Analysts" with Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) code 15-1211. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary possesses 
the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in management information systems based upon their education, 
training, and experience. In its H-lB petition filing, the Petitioner stated that its educational 
requirement for the position is a bachelor's degree in computer science, arts, finance, or an equivalent 
degree. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to provide services in the proffered position. However, the Director did not make a finding 
as to whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. As noted above, 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 ofMichael Hertz 
1 The petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credentials evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not experience. 
3 
Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560. A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only 
when the job is found to be a specialty occupation. 
The record as it stands, however, does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. This is because, rather than requiring a degree in a specific 
specialty, the record shows that the Petitioner will accept a bachelor's degree in a wide variety of 
disparate fields-specifically, computer science, arts, or finance. While a degree in a specific specialty 
may not be limited to one specific degree or major for a position to be considered a specialty 
occupation, there must be a sufficiently close relation between the required specialized studies to 
constitute a common "specialty" and that "specialty" must be related to the duties of the position. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there 
must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the 
position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as 
philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related 
to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis 
added). The Petitioner has not done so here. The record does not contain any explanation for how the 
fields of computer science, arts, and finance are each directly related to the duties and responsibilities 
of the position such that they constitute a "body of highly specialized knowledge." As a result, the 
Petitioner's minimum requirement to perform the duties does not satisfy the statutory or regulatory 
definitions of the H-lB program. See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
The degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework is not just a bachelor's degree, 
or a bachelor's degree in disparate fields, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly 
related to the duties of the proffered position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d at 147. For 
this reason alone, the record satisfies neither the statutory nor the regulatory definitions of the term 
"specialty occupation," regardless of whether the position satisfies any of the four specialty occupation 
criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
Because the record does not establish that the position is a specialty occupation, we could deny the 
petition on that basis alone. However, we recognize that the Director did not make a finding as to 
whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation, that this was not a basis for the denial of the 
petition, and that the Petitioner therefore does not address this issue on appeal. Therefore, to address 
the Director's decision and the Petitioner's appeal, we will consider whether the evidence submitted 
is sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position as described. Upon de novo review, we conclude that it is not. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary qualifies for the proffered pos1t10n under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C)( 4)-that the Beneficiary has education and progressively responsible experience 
that is equivalent to completion of a U.S. bachelor's degree or higher in the specialty occupation, and 
has recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly 
4 
related to the specialty. 2 The Director found that the evidence was insufficient to establish the 
Beneficiary's qualifications as required by this regulation. The record contains two evaluations, both 
from university professors who conclude that the Beneficiary's combination of education and work 
experience equates to a bachelor's degree in management information systems. The Director 
concluded that both evaluations were insufficient because the employment letters upon which the 
evaluations relied did not sufficiently support the evaluations' conclusions. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director's objection to the evaluations provided are "moot" 
because the writer of the evaluation submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) 
is an "expert," and faculty members are appropriate evaluators of academic and experiential 
credentials. The Petitioner also asserts that the evaluation submitted in response to the RFE is 
sufficient because it provides a detailed discussion of the curriculum of a computer and information 
systems degree and the Beneficiary's work experience. 
Although the record contains two evaluations-one submitted with the initial filing, and one submitted 
in response to the RFE-the Petitioner discusses only the evaluation submitted with the RFE response 
on appeal. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the evaluation does not satisfy the regulatory 
requirements for demonstrating a beneficiary's degree equivalency based upon education, training, 
and experience. The evaluation, from Dr. I I Ph.D., Professor of Information Systems 
Management at concludes that the Beneficiary possesses the educational 
equivalency of a U.S. bachelor's degree in management information systems based upon the 
Beneficiary's foreign degree in commerce, foreign master of business administration degree, and years 
of work experience. However, the record does not show that the evaluation meets the requirements of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). 
First, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) requires that such an evaluation be 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. But record does not show that Dr.I is an official who has authority 
to grant college-level credit at a college or university that has a program for granting such credit. 
Specifically, the record does not contain sufficient documentary evidence to establish that I I 
I I has a program for granting college-level credit based on training or work experience in the 
specialty. The professor asserts in the evaluation that they have "the authority to grant college-level 
credit for experience, training, and/or courses taken at other U.S. or international universities," and an 
accompanying letter from an associate dean of research and faculty affairs claims that I I
I has many programs that may award college-level credit or admission based on a candidate's 
foreign credentials, training and/or employment experience." However, the record contains no further 
information about the specifics of any of these programs, such as any restrictions for these programs 
and whether they offer credits that relate to the specific specialty, to demonstrate that they meet the 
regulatory requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). We conclude that the brief, conclusory 
statements, made without further supporting documentation, are not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
evaluation is from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or 
2 The Petitioner does not claim, and the record does not show, that the Beneficiary qualifies for the proffered position 
based upon 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l), (C)(2), or (C)(3). 
5 
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. 
Second, the evaluation's conclusions are not sufficiently substantiated. For example, Dr. ___ 
identifies the Beneficiary's former employers, periods of employment, and discusses the Beneficiary's 
job duties; however, contrary to the Petitioner's assertions on appeal, Dr. I I does not discuss 
the specific academic coursework requirements of a bachelor's degree in information management 
systems nor discuss how the Beneficiary's work experience relates to such a degree and would equate 
to any of the specific coursework required for this degree program. We therefore conclude that the 
evaluation from Dr.I I is not sufficiently persuasive to establish that the Beneficiary possesses 
the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in information management systems based upon education and 
work experience, in addition to not meeting the regulatory requirements for an evaluation found at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). 
Although the Petitioner does not discuss on appeal the evaluation initially submitted, we similarly 
conclude that this evaluation is not sufficiently persuasive to demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets 
the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)( 4). The initial evaluation is from I 
Ph.D., a senior faculty at I IMinnesota, and similarly concludes that 
the Beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in management information systems. 
However, the evidence upon which the evaluator relies does not support the evaluation's conclusions. 
For example, the evaluator states that they relied on employment verification letters from the 
Beneficiary's prior employers. However, the employment verification letters upon which the 
evaluator relied do not describe the Beneficiary's duties in a detailed manner, and the evaluator does 
not sufficiently explain their conclusions. For example, the evaluation makes the conclusory statement 
that, "it was determined that [the Beneficiary] assumed professional responsibility and has achieved 
recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation as a result of such training and experience." But 
the evaluator does not explain how this conclusion was reached, and the employment letters provided 
do not support this conclusion. We therefore conclude that the evaluation from Dr. I I is also 
not sufficiently persuasive to establish that the Beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a bachelor's 
degree in information management systems based upon the Beneficiary's education and work 
expenence. 
Finally, the Petitioner submits additional evidence on appeal that does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). The additional evidence 
submitted on appeal includes an offer letter from the Beneficiary's prior employer, a letter from the 
prior employer regarding the Beneficiary's resignation from their position, and paystubs. While this 
evidence may help support the dates of the Beneficiary's prior employment, it does not help 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's job duties involved the type of progressively responsible experience 
that would be equivalent to a bachelor's degree in the specialty. 
We also note that the Petitioner provided a copy of an email from a supervisor at the Beneficiary's 
prior employer regarding the various positions held by the Beneficiary during their employment with 
this employer. However, this evidence also does not help demonstrate that the Beneficiary held 
progressively responsible positions, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) to demonstrate 
recognition of expertise in the specialty, because the positions described and the dates of the 
promotions do not align with the Beneficiary's positions with this employer as described elsewhere in 
6 
the record. The evidence does not help demonstrate the Petitioner's claims about the Beneficiary's 
experience, but rather leads to more questions about the reliability of the evidence in the record. 
Although the record contains information regarding the Beneficiary's work history, it does not 
establish that the Beneficiary has the education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience that is equivalent to completion of a United States bachelor's degree or higher in the 
specialty occupation, or that the Beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty through 
progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C)( 4). 
Because the Petitioner does not assert, and the record does not show, that the Beneficiary qualifies 
under any of the other criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), we conclude that the record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in the proffered position. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation or 
that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 As stated above, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty occupation. However, 
we have discussed the Beneficiary's qualifications in order to address the Director's decision. 
7