dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision ofthe 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 30,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a staffing company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "programmer 
analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 
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 Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the record 
does not establish that (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and (2) the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The matter is now befo~e us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in her decision. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We find the evidence of record insufficient to establish that the proffered position qualifies as 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. 
(b)(6)
I. 
Matter of K- Inc. 
I 
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: 
(1) 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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
1 interpreted· the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 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"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor , 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the Petitioner, evidence of the client companies ' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former INS had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as requiring the 
Petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the 
basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the Beneficiary's services. !d. Such 
evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular work. 
B. Proffered Position 
In the H-1 B petition , the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will work off-site as a "programmer 
analyst" and provided a brief description of his job duties. In response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner clarified that the Beneficiary will be assigned to work for its client, 
, at its office in , Iowa. The Petitioner provided 
an expanded job description for the Beneficiary , as follows: 
2 
Matter of K- Inc. 
No. 
a 
Duties 
Analyzing user 
and defining 
specifications 
Detailed Information 
requirements Identify requirements/User stories at the 
functional business meetings and strategize the impact 
of requirements on different 
platforms/applications. 
Understand current Software state of 
application and determine the impact of 
new implementation on existing business 
processes. 
Read through ex1stmg Java codes for 
existing applications and use that as basis 
of decisions around the enhancements. 
Communicate with different teams like 
Test, Requirement, Production Support for 
different functions for applications, the 
proposed changes and estimated release 
dates. 
Percentage 
of Time 
Involved 
10% 
b Developing Java design patterns Understanding current Production state of 10% 
and Java EE design patterns for batch programs associated with the legacy 
persistence software applications and designing the 
solutions to integrate new processes & 
implementation into new environments. 
Design new design patterns based on 
legacy software programs with latest Java 
EE Technologies and infrastructure m 
order to provide long-term supportability 
and sustainability. 
Design new applications for high 
transaction processmg & scalability m 
order to seamlessly support future 
modifications and growing volume of data 
processed in environment. 
Implement solutions in order to effectively 
improve the performance of batch data 
3 
) 
Matter of K- Inc. 
c 
d 
e 
f 
processing and high volume of data being 
handled by the system to provide better 
customer support. 
Designing SQL to pull segment Based on the new or updated business 
inputs for the whole application requirements, implement software layers 
and SQL to fetch data from databases/data 
warehouses/document rules by using JDBC 
and others to obtain data. 
Building the application usmg 
Hudson 
Developing HTML pages using 
AUIML and Angular JS and 
integrating them to back-end 
technology 
Applying SQL Server as the 
database and applying My SQL 
workbench as the UI 
Understanding current Production state 
after each iteration or tasks, integrate new 
or updated changes into test environments 
for QA/Test groups. 
Implement new front end codes into 
Commercial Internet Quoting System 
which usmg HTMLIAUIML to create 
Graphical User Interface (GUI) and using 
JavaScript/AngularJS to create response 
actions for users. 
Updating current data access model into 
SQL Server or MySQL based on different 
data. 
Design the data access model to effectively 
support future application upgrades and 
help improve the long-term supportability 
and sustainability. 
10% 
5% 
20% 
5% 
g Developing and implementing Developing back end sides to incorporate 20% 
h 
test validations of the the new business requirements. 
applications using Junit 
Analyzing test results and 
recommending modifications to 
the applications to meet project 
specification 
Designing and developing Database 
Objects in order to support the changes for 
front end processing and application 
implementations listed in (b) to (e) above. 
Writing test cases by using JUnit to make 
sure new codes are strong and effective. 
Preparing a test plan consisting of risks, 
assumptions, timelines and dependencies 
of the project divided into vanous 
platforms. 
Identifying high level testing and data 
requirements and getting approval from the 
4 
10% 
Matter of K- Inc. 
J 
Participating in the deployment 
of the application into existing 
systems 
Documenting modifications and 
enhancements made to the 
applications and systems as 
required by the project 
QA/Test teams. 
Coordinating with Production team on 
progress of the deployment execution and 
ensunng that the building/deployment 
activities would be completed within the 
allocated timelines. 
Generating Test execution reports/graphs 
at a project level and component level, and 
discussing the defects and improvements. 
Analyzing the Test & Performance Results 
and implement the changes to meet the 
project and business expectation. 
Document all the changes implemented 
across all systems and components. 
Documentation . includes Technical 
changes, Infrastructure changes, and 
Business Process changes. 
I 
Post Release documentation would also 
include Known Issues from Production 
Implementation and Deferred defects. 
5% 
5% 
In another letter submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will 
continue to perform the duties of a Programmer Analyst with [its] company" to perform duties 
including "[j]oining a team working on large project initiatives running in 2 week sprints using 
Java/J2EE and Groovy/Grails technology." 
According to the Petitioner and the end-cl~ent, the proffered position requires "a Bachelor's Degree 
or work experience equivalent''in Computer Science, Computer Information Systems, Computer 
Applications, Electrical Engineering or a related field and Java experience." ' 
C. Analysis 
As a preliminary matter, we find the Petitioner and end-client's descriptions of the proffered position 
insufficient to convey what the Beneficiary will be doing for the requested period of time. Neither 
the Petitioner, nor the end-client, has explained in detail the nature of the project(s) to which the 
Beneficiary will be assigned in order to give context and understanding to the stated job duties. For 
instance, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will spend 20% of his time on developing HTML 
pages for a "Commercial Internet Quoting System." However, the Petitioner. does not further 
5 
Matter of K- Inc. 
explain or docu!llent what this particular system is, such that we can understand the type of work the 
Beneficiary will perform on it. 1 ' 
Moreover, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be "[j]oining a team working on large 
project initiatives." But the Petitioner has not further identified and explained what these "project 
initiatives" (in the plural) are. In contrast, the end-client letter references only a single "project." 
We cannot determine from the vague and inconsistent nature of the Petitioner and end-client's 
descriptions whether they are referring to the same project(s), and if not, the job duties the 
Beneficiary will perform for the end-client's other project(s).2 
Unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its 
burden of proof. See Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In short, the record contains insufficient details regarding the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's 
employment or substantive evidence regarding the actual work that the Beneficiary will perform. 
Without a meaningful job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and 
informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge ilf a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate (1) the actual work 
that the Beneficiary will perform; (2) the complexity, uniqueness and/or specialization of the tasks; 
and/or (3) the correlation between that work and a need for a particular level education of highly 
specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. 
The Petitioner thus has· not established the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). It is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) the 
normal minimum educational requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of 
criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel' to the proffered position and thus appropriate for 
review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level 
of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second. alternate 
1 We note, for example, that the duty of developing HTML pages could possibly be more appropriate for a position under 
the "Web Developers" occupational classification, depending on the type of "system" the Beneficiary will work on. For 
more information about the "Web Developers" occupational classification, see U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Web Developers," https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and­
information-technology/print/web-developers.htm (last visited Jan. 30, 20 17). This chapter states, in pertinent part, that 
web developers "[w]rite code for websites, using programming languages such as HTML." !d. 
2 We also note that the record contains a master service agreement between the Petitioner and the end-client, but does not 
contain a work order for the Beneficiary's services. The master service agreement states that the Petitioner "shall 
perform the services specifically described in the orders agreed to in writing and signed by the parties from time to time 
(each, an 'Order')." 
6 
Matter of K- Inc. 
prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its 
equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and 
complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 
Nevertheless, for the purpose of performing a comprehensive analysis of whether the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, we will turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
1. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree'in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) as an authoritative source on the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses.3 
The Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to. Become a Computer Systems Analyst" states, in 
pertinent part: "A bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although 
not always a requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have 
skills in information technology or computer programming." 4 The Handbook also states: "Although 
many computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement. 
Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise 
elsewhere. "5 
The Handbook indicates that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field may be 
common, but that it is not a requirement for entry into these jobs. In fact, this chapter reports that 
"many" computer systems analysts only have liberal arts degrees and programming or technical 
experience, but does not further qualify the amount of experience needed. The Handbook also notes 
that many analysts have technical degrees, but does not specify a degree level (e.g., associate's 
degree) for these technical degrees. The Handbook further specifies that such a technical degree is 
not always a requirement. Thus, this passage of the Handbook reports that there are several paths for 
entry into the occupation. 
3 All of our references are to the 2016-17 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designate'd by the Petitioner is1considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Computer Systems 
Analysts," https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/print/computer-systems-analysts.htm (last 
visited Jan. 30, 20 17). · 
5 !d. 
Matter of K- Inc. 
When reviewing the Handbook, we must also consider that the Petitioner designated the proffered 
position as a Level I (entry) position on the labor condition application (LCA).6 The "Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by the DOL describes a Level I wage rate as generally 
appropriate for a position for which the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic 
understanding of the occupation .. This wage rate indicates: (1) that the Beneficiary will be expected 
to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he will be closely 
supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. 7 Thus, in designating the proffered 
position at a Level I wage, the Petitioner has indicated that the proffered position is a comparatively 
low, entry-level position relative to others within the occupation.8 
In the instant case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or another authoritative source, indicates that 
normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. The Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
2. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "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[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
contemplates common industry practice, while the alternatiye prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
6 
The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to USC IS to demonstrate that it will pay an H-I B 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 experience and qualifications who are performing the same 
services. See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
7 U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. 
Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at http://tlcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ 
Revised_ll_2009.pdf 
8 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position indicates that it is a comparatively 
low-level position compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a Level I wage-designation 
does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a Level IV wage-designation 
does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level I, entry­
level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for 
entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies as a specialty 
occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not itself 
conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
8 
Matter of K- Inc. 
a. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999)(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the 
Handbook, or another authoritative source, reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We incorporate by reference our previous 
discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association 
indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did 
not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry 
attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." See id. Therefore, 
based upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 
alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not sufficiently developed relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the proffered position. We reiterate our previous discussion regarding the 
insufficient and vague nature of the Petitioner and end-client's descriptions of the proffered position, 
including the lack of information about the particular project(s) to which the Beneficiary will be 
assigned. These insufficient descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties, without additional details or 
corroborating evidence of the specific tasks he will perform for the end-client's operations, do not 
establish the relative complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The general descriptions of 
the proffered duties do not identify tasks that are so complex or unique that only a specifically 
degreed individual could perform them. 
In this matter, the Petitioner highlights "[t]he highly technical nature" of the position. The Petitioner 
also highlights the need for "scientific analysis and use of mathematical models to predict and 
measure, the outcome and consequences of design with a broad and intensive theoretical 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of K- Inc. ) 
understanding of computer and software technology." However, the Petitioner has not explained 
which of the proffered job duties are "highly technical" and/or require "scientific analysis and use of 
mathematical models," and more importantly, why. For instance, the Petitioner did not submit 
information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and did not establish 
how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it may believe are so complex and unique. 
Further, and as previously noted, the LCA submitted by the Petitioner indicates that the proffered 
position is · a Level I (entry) wage, which, as noted above," is the lowest of four assignable wage 
levels. Without a~ditional evidence, the record of proceedings does not indicate that the proffered 
position is so complex or unique, as such a position would likely be classified at a higher-level , 
which requires a significantly higher prevailing wage.9 For all of the above reasons, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
3. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor 's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent , for the position. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submits information about "a sampling of other 
Programmer Analysts employed by the Petitioner," including copies of the individual's diplomas , 
transcripts, and pay statements. 
But the Petitioner has not further explained how this "sampling" of employees is representative of 
the company's employment history for the proffered position. The Petitioner states that it "is one of 
the largest specialty staffing firms in the United States," and currently has over 13,000 employees in 
the United States. The Petitioner does not identify the total number of programmer analysts it has 
employed since its inception in to demonstrate what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be 
drawn from information about such a limited number of employees. See generally Earl Babbie, The 
Practice of Social Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner does not document these employees' actual job duties. To satisfy this 
criterion, the evidence of record must show that the specific performance requirements of the 
position generated the recruiting and hiring history. USCIS must examine the actual employment 
requirements, and, on the basis of that examination , determine whether the position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation . See generally Defensor , 201 F. 3d 384. In this pursuit, the critical element is 
not the title of the position, or the fact that an employer has routinely insisted on certain educational 
standards, but whether performance of the position actually requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation as required by 
9 See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Traini~ g Admin ., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidan ce, Nonagric . 
Immigration Programs (rev . Nov. 2009), available at http://tlcdatacenter .com/download!NPWHC _Guidance_ 
Revised_ ll_2009 .pdf 
10 
Matter of K- Inc. 
the Act. Therefore, the Petitioner's statement that these employees are also "programme'r analysts," 
without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that these other individuals are actually employed in the 
proffered position. 
Here, the record of proceedings is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner normally requires a 
bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. The 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
4. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish 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 baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and\ complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner does not establish how the 
proffered duties elevate the proffered position to a specialty occupation. We again refer to our 
comments regarding the vague descriptions of the proffered position. We also refer to the 
implications of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position at a Level I (entry) wage level 
under the "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational classification. For the reasons discussed 
above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 2142(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, we 
cannot find that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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 ( 1 )(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. 
I I 
Matter of K- Inc. 
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: 
(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 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 oc~upation, and have recognition of expertise in 
the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly related to the 
specialty. 
Therefore, to qualify a beneficiary for classification as an H -1 B nonimmigrant worker under the Act, 
the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary possesses the requisite degree or its foreign 
equivalent. Alternatively, if a beneficiary does not possess the required U.S. degree or its foreign 
degree equivalent, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary possesses both (1) education, 
specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience in the specialty equivalent to the 
completion of such degree, and (2) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
In order to equate a beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree, the provisions 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) require one or more 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) 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); 
12 
Matter of K- Inc. 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 10 
( 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 .... 
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 authorities in the same specialty occupation; 11 
(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; 
10 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. 
11 Recognized authority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or knowledge in 
that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). A recognized authority's 
opinion must state: (I) 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. !d. 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of K- Inc. 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a 
foreign country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significant contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
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 USCIS application and determination, 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 Beneficiary possesses a foreign bachelor of science degree in biotechnology, and two U.S. 
master's degrees in biological sciences/biology. He is currently enrolled at 
to pursue a master's degree in computer technology/computer systems. 
Under the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l), the Petitioner submitted an evaluation of 
education and work experience from , a professor of computer science and 
engineering at , concluding that the Beneficiary has the equivalent of a 
U.S. bachelor's degree in computer information systems. 
Upon close review of the record, we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
possesses the authority to grant college-level credit 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(1). evaluation is prefaced by a self­
prepared statement that he has the authority to grant transfer credits or course waiver credits. 
However, his statement is not corroborated by other evidence recognizing his authority. While on 
appeal the Petitioner submits additional information from website 
about its '' ' credit program and professional internship course, this information does not 
address actual role and authority to grant such credits as a professor and former interim 
director (from 2005 to March 2006) of the office of international programs at 
Again, unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry 
its burden of proof. See Matter o.fSo.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165; see also Matter o.fChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. Id. We may ~ in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an 
advisory opinion. Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or 
give less weight to that evaluation. Id. As an exercise of our discretion, we decline to accord 
probative weight. 
14 
(b)(6)
Matter of K- Inc. 
Under the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), we conclude that the evidence of record is 
insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's education and experience is equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in the specific 
specialty. At issue are questions and discrepancies concerning the 
Beneficiary's claimed work experience at . and 
The Beneficiary purportedly worked for as a computer programmer pursuant to his 
enrollment in a master's program in biological sciences/biology at the 
According to his Form I-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1) Student Status, he was 
authorized optional practical training (OPT) to work for from July 9, 2012, to July 8, 
2013.12 As the Director noted, there are inconsistencies in the dates of his employment: the letter 
from , human resources manager of , states his dates of employment as July 
2012 to June 30, 2013, while the letter from software development engineer and the 
Beneficiary's claimed supervisor at states his dates of employment as July 23, 2012, to 
July 15, 2013. Also, the Form 1-20 lists office as located in New Jersey, while 
the letter from lists a work address in Washington. Further, 
evaluation states that the Beneficiary worked for in California. The Petitioner has not 
provided an explanation, corroborated by objective evidence, reconciling these numerous concerns 
and inconsistencies. 
Subsequently, the Beneficiary purportedly worked for as a software. engineer, also pursuant 
to his enrollment in a master's program in biological sciences/biology at the 
However, the Petitioner has not submitted the Form I-20 which authorized his OPT for 
instead, the Beneficiary's Form 1-20 reflects that he was authorized OPT to again work for 
during the time period in which he claimed to have worked for (July 9, 2013, to 
December 9, 2014). 
All of these discrepancies cast doubt on the credibility of the Petitioner's claims regarding the 
Beneficiary's work experience. "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies 
by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Any attempt 
to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. "Doubt cast on any aspect of the 
petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition." !d. at 591. 
In any event, we find that the work verification letters do not clearly demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's training and/or work experience includ~d the theoretical and practical application of 
specialized knowledge required by the specialty occupation; that his experience was gained while 
working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty 
occupation; and that he has recognition of expertise in the specialty evidenced by at least one type of 
12 
It is not clear based on the record how the Beneficiary 's work experience as a computer programmer or software 
engineer is "directly related to his or her major area of study ," as required for OPT. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(t)( I O)(ii)(A). 
15 
Matter of K- Inc. 
documentation required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). Without more, we cannot find the 
evidence of record sufficiently .reliable to conclude, through a Service evaluation, that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the 
duties of the proffered position. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofK- Inc., ID# 151172 (AAO Jan. 30, 2017) 
16