dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2024 In Re: 34888493 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment under the H-lB nonirnrnigrant 
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-lB program allows a U.S. employer to file 
a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Beneficiary was qualified to perform 
services in the specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the 
burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . Section 291 of the Act; 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de 
novo. Matter of Christo 's Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we 
will dismiss the appeal. 
After reviewing the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's ultimate determination with the 
added comments below. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. 
INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below 
has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Edwards 
v. US. Att'y Gen., 97 F.4th 725, 734 (11th Cir. 2024) (joining every other U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give 
"individualized consideration" to the case). 
The Director determined the education evaluation the Petitioner initially provided was inadequate to show 
the Beneficiary had attained the required education. We note that although the Petitioner provided a 
second education equivalency evaluation from a credentials evaluation service which specializes in 
evaluating foreign educational credentials, the author of that evaluation (Mr. I the Senior 
Credential Evaluator) provided selective text from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and 
Admissions Officers Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE). The text the credentials 
evaluator selected only applied to those who were awarded the Master of Computer Applications 
credential after three years of study. That three-year program represents attainment of a level of education 
comparable to a master's degree in the United States, and that is the text Mr.I !selectively quoted 
within his evaluation when he equated the Beneficiary's education to a Master of Science in Computer 
Information Systems. 
But the Beneficiary did not attend that three-year program and anyone who was awarded this credential 
who attend the program for less than three years did not attain a level of education comparable to a 
master's degree in the United States. That significantly undermines the evidentiary value of this 
credentials evaluation and falls short of the Petitioner's claims that its evidence satisfied the relevant 
regulatory provisions. 
Although the Petitioner offers additional evidence on appeal, the Director requested that type of material 
and the organization failed to produce it for the record at that time. Because both the regulation and the 
Director's request for evidence put the Petitioner on notice and gave it a reasonable opportunity to 
provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l l) 
( requiring all requested evidence be submitted together at one time); Matter ofFurtado, 28 I&N Dec. 
794, 801-02 (BIA 2024) (declining to consider new evidence on appeal when the filing party was put 
on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record 
before the denial); see also Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 1988). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2