dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

MATTER OF D-G-S- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 31, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"technical architect" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the ·Act) section IOI(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ !IOI(a)(!5)(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 
evidence of record did not establish that (I) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
and (2) the Beneficiary is qualified to serve in a specialty occupation position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in finding that the proffered position is not a specialty occupation and 
. that the Beneficiary does not qualify for the position. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Law 
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. 
Matter of D-G-S- Inc. 
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 profJered 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 
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). 
B. Proffered Position 
The Petitioner describes the duties of the proffered posttwn and the percentage of time the 
Beneficiary would spend on each task as follows (verbatim; emphasis omitted): 1 
Phase Job Duties %Time 
Functional Understanding and documenting functional requirements 15% 
Requirement This Phase involves the following activities 
1. understand the high level requirements of the prospect 
from Sales team and the project Manager 
1 The duties listed here are provided by the Petitioner in its request for evidence (RFE) response letter and on appeal. 
Some of the duties stated in the Petitioner's support letter differ from the ones stated here. The Petitioner does not 
provide any explanation for the varying duties. "[l]t is incumbent upon the Petitioner to resolve the inconsistencies by 
independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 (BlA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile 
such inconsiste~cies will not suffice unless the Petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. !d. at 591-92. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-G-S- Inc. 
2. Understand the functionality required to be delivered 
3. Provide an estimate for the work to be done using 
Function 
point technique 
4. Create functional specification document based on 
which design and development will be carried out. 
• Understand the functionality requir ed to be 5% 
delivered 
• Provide an estimates 5% 
• Create functiona l specification document 5% 
Technical Creating and documenting technical design of the 45% 
designing components 
This activity involves·designing the components 
considering functional and non-functional requirements. 
Followings are the main activities involved during the 
technical design phase 
l. Work with designing the technical 
solution after conducting feasibility 
2. Design the solution fitting the needs of the customer 
as well as long term vision of related to ePM 
solution 
3 .. Design the interfaces to various satellite systems such 
as ERP's, Reporting tools, Customer's in-house systems 
for seamless data integration and flow 
_4. Design the database structure in the SQL Server. 
Also understand integration with other Database's such 
as Or
acle, DB2 or flat file system 
5. Design the reusable components using ASP.NET 
MVC, Entity Framework. 
Continu ously poll the technology on the direction it is 
taking to make sure that the solutions delivers the 
requirements of the industry in most optimal and 
technologica lly advanced framework. 
• Understanding the design 5% 
Creating high-level technical design new 15% ' 
• 
components and documenting them. 
• Creating detailed technical design documents of 25% 
new components 
Development Participating in devel
opment, delegating the 35% 
development activities and supporting team to perform 
quality development 
This phase required development of core component of 
3 
Matter of D-G-S- Inc. 
the application which will be used by the team to further 
complete development of required features and 
functionalities. As a technical architect he will also 
oversee the quality by means of unit testing and code 
rev1ews 
• Creating components framework using design 5% 
patterns best suitable for the component as per the 
design and coding guidelines defined. 
• Develop the database structure in the SQL Server 5% 
• Creating complex stored procedures, functions in 5% 
SQL server. Development of ePM processes as 
per design 
• Develop Clickable HTML screens or a wireframe 2% 
with CSS3 framework prototype and POC's to 
demonstrate the feasibility of proposed 
requirements 
• Development & documentations of reusable 5% 
components for future use. 
• Develop job schedulers for time bound 5% 
instantiation of tasks that are required for the 
solution to work as per requirements. 
• Guide development team in delivering the 3% 
functionality needed 
• Peer review the components developed from 5% 
technical perspective 
Testing Supporting the testing team during system & integration 5% 5% 
testing in case any clarifications are required. Also 
involve in performance testing to done using load runner. 
Total 100% 
The Petitioner requires a minimum of a "Bachelor's degree or its equivalent in Engineering, Science, 
Computer Science or a closely related field" for the proffered position. 
The labor condition application (LCA) submitted by the Petitioner in support of the petition was 
certified for use with a job prospect within the "Software Developers, Applications" occupational 
classification, SOC (O*NET/OES) Code 15-1132, and a Level I (entry-level) prevailing wage rate, 
the lowest of the four assignable wage-levels. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-G-S- Inc. 
C. Analysis 
For H-1 B approval, the Petitioner must demonstrate a legitimate need for an employee exists and 
substantiate that it has H-1 B caliber work for the Beneficiary for the period of employment 
requested in the petition. It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to demonstrate it has sufficient work to 
require the services of a person with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, to perform duties at a level that requires the theoretical and practical application of at 
least a bachelor's degree level of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty for 
the period specified in the petition . 
In. this matter, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiar y will be employed in-house as a 
'Technical Architect." However ,. upon review of the record of proceedings, we find that the 
Petitioner did not submit a job description that adequately conveys the substantive work to be 
performed by the Beneficiary. USCIS in this matter must review the actual duties the Beneficiary 
will be expected to perform to ascertain whether those duties require at least a baccala,ureate degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent , as required for classification as a specialty occupation. To 
accomplish that task in this matter, USCIS must analyze the actual duties in conjunction with the 
specific project(s) to which the Beneficiary will be assigned. To allow otherwise, results in generic 
descriptions of duties that, while they may appear (in some instances) to comprise the duties of a 
specialty occupation, are not related to any actual services the Beneficiary is expected to provide. 
Considering the totality of the Petitioner's duty descriptions, we find that the evidence of record does 
not establish the depth, complexity, or level of specialization, or substantive aspects of the matters upon 
which the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will engage. We acknowledge that the Petitioner has 
provided a rather lengthy version of the duties; however, the duties of the proffered position, and the 
position itself, are nonetheless described in relatively generalized and abstract terms that do not relate 
·substantial details about either the position or its constituent duties. 
For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will "work with ., "design the 
solution," "design the interfaces" "design the database structure," "develop clickable HTML," and 
"develop job schedulers" without providing specific duties associated with these tasks. Similarly, the 
Petitioner did not provide details regarding the Beneficiary's specific role in "guid[ing] development 
team" and "supporting the testing team." Likewise, stating that the Beneficiary will "peer review the 
components developed" reveals no details regarding the project itself or the tasks involved with the 
project. Furthermore, in the "Functional Requirement" section of the duties, the Petitioner states that 
the Beneficiar y will "understand the high level requirement s" and "understand the functionality 
r
equired t o be delivered ," which refer to the skills required in performing tasks but do not provide 
any insight into the actual tasks the Beneficiary will perform ? ' · 
2 The Petitioner listed similar skills required for the proffered position under the subheading "Technical Designing" of 
the duties. 
5 
Matter ~~ D-G-S- Inc. 
Such generalized information does not in itself establish a correlation between any dimension of the 
proffered position and a need for a particular level of education, or educational equivalency, in a 
body of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty. Therefore, it is not evident that the 
proposed duties as described in this record of proceeding, and the position that they comprise, merit 
recognition of the proffered position as a specialty occupation. The duties as described give very little 
insight to actual tasks that the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, we find 
that the Petitioner has not supplemented the job and duty descriptions with documentary evidence 
establishing the substantive nature of the work that the Beneficiary would perform, whatever practical 
and theoretical applications of highly specialized knowledge in a specific specialty would be required to 
perform such substantive work, and whatever correlation may exist between such work and associated 
performance-required knowledge and attaimnent of a particular level of education, or educational 
equivalency, in a specific specialty. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not described the proffered position with sufficient detail to determine 
that the minimum requirement is a bachelor's degree in a specialized field of study. It is incumbent 
on the Petitioner to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the particular position that it proffers 
would necessitate services at a level requiring both the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. When "any person makes application for a visa or any other document 
required for entry, or makes application for admission, ... the burden of proof shall be upon such 
person to establish that he is eligible" for such benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; see 
also Matter ofTreasure Crafi of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' I Comm'r 1972) 
We also observe that several job duties indicate that the Beneficiary will perform some managerial­
level duties. For example, the Petitioner stated the Beneficiary would "guide" the "development 
team" and "oversee the quality." Also, in support of its assertion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation, the Petitioner submitted its job advertisement for a technical architect position 
which it claims to be the same as the proffered position. According to this advertisement, the 
Petitioner requires five years of progressive experience in the position offered along with its 
educational requirement, which also indicates a higher-level position3 However, the Petitioner's 
statements on the LCA are inconsistent with the work experience requirement stated on the 
Petitioner's job advertisement.4 The LCA indicates a wage level at a Level I (entry) wage, which is 
3 Furthermore, the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary has been working for the Petitioner in a "senior" level position 
since 2004 detracts further from the Petitioner's assertion that this is an entry-level position. 
4 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique 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 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-G-S- Inc. 
the lowest of four assignable wage-levels. "[I]t is incumbent upon the Petitioner to resolve the 
inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 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. 
The Petitioner also submitted two opinion letters5 from a professor at 
In his letters, states that the "provided position description clearly 
illustrates the advanced, complex, and professional nature of this position." He further asserts that 
the proffered position requires "a bachelor's-level degree (or the equivalent) in an applicable field, 
such as Computer Information Systems, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or a related 
area." states that he "reviewed an outline of the job duties ... as presented in the 
employer's petition letter." 
As we noted above, the duties provided in the Petitioner's support letter are 
different than the ones 
provided in its RFE letter and on appeal. did not state whether he reviewed all 
versions of the duties. Thus, there is no indication that he possesses sufficient knowledge of the 
Petitioner's proffered position beyond the information provided by the Petitioner. Further, he 
indicated that the "position description clearly illustrates the advanced, complex, and professional 
nature of this position." There is no indication that was aware of the fact that the 
Petitioner designated the proffered position as an entry-level position relative to others within the 
occupational category. We consider this a significant omission, in that it indicates an incomplete 
review of the position. has not provided sufficient facts that would support the 
contention that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor 's degree in a specific specialty. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 {Comm'r 1988). However, we will 
reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if 
it is in any way questionable. !d. USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert 
opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. !d.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does 
not purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if' it will assist the trier of tact to 
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."'). Therefore, we find that 
letter has limited probative value to establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
Without a meaningful, credible job description, the record lacks evidence sufficiently concrete and 
informative to demonstrate that the proffered position requires a specialty occupation's level of 
knowledge in a specific specialty. The tasks as described do not communicate (1) the actual work 
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. 
5 
The letters dated September 30, 2015, and November 17, 2015, are virtually identical in content. 
7 
Matter of D-G-S- Inc. 
that the Beneficiary would 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's assertion with regard to the 
educational requirement for the position is conclusory and unpersuasive, as it is not supported by the 
job description or probative evidence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Maller of So!Jici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crajt of Cal., 14 l&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'! Comm'r 1972)). Moreover, the inconsistencies highlighted above undermine the credibility 
of the entire petition. 
The inability to establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary 
consequently precludes a finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that determines: (I) the normal • minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is the focus of criterion I; 
(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 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. Accordingly, as the Petitioner 
has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot 
be found that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
We note that the Petitioner cites to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. 
Ohio 2012), for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation-specific majors. What is required is an 
occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained 
the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." 
We agree with the aforementioned proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is 
what is important." 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)(I)(B)ofthe 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 such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation 
of these different specialties. Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). For the 
aforementioned reasons, however, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the particular 
8 
Matter of D-G-S-Inc. 
position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance. 6 We also note that, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the 
published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, 
the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. !d. 
Finally, the Petitioner further refers to unpublished decisions in which we determined that the 
proffered positions qualified as specialty occupations. The Petitioner has furnished no evidence to 
establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decisions. 
While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees 
in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
For the reasons related in the preceding discussion, the Petitioner has not established that it has 
satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) and, therefore, it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
II. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATION 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. However, a 
beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a 
specialty occupation. Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. However, in order to address the Director's decision, we will discuss whether 
the evidence submitted was sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary was qualified to perform 
the duties of the proffered position as described. 
A. Law 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an alien applying for classification as 
an H-I B nonimmigrant worker must possess: · 
6 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 
made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed 
to us. Based on the district court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through 
the available administrative.process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision 
for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
novo review of the matter. 
9 
Matter of D-G-S- Inc. 
(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 (!)(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 an alien 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 are 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. 
Therefore, to qualify an individual for classification as an H-IB nonimmigrant worker under the Act, 
the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary. possesses the requisite license or, if none is 
required, that he or she has completed a degree in the specialty that the occupation requires. 
Alternatively, if a license is not required and if the Beneficiary does not possess the required U.S. 
degree or its foreign degree equivalent, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary possesses both 
(I) 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. 
10 
Matter of D-G-S- Inc. 
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 (PONS!); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 7 
( 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: 
7 The Petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credentials evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not experience. 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-G-S- Inc. 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two 
recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation; 8 
(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 in a foreign 
country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significant contributions to the field ofthe 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 proceeding 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 
In its support letter, the Petitioner states that it requires "a Bachelor's degree or its equivalent in 
Computer 
Science, Engineering, Computer Information Systems or a closely related IT field" for the 
proffered position. 
We note that, absent (1) an actual U.S. bachelor's or higher degree from an accredited college or 
university, (2) a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to such a degree, 9or (3) a pertinent 
license, the only remaining avenue for the Beneficiary to qualify for the proffered position is 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), in which the petitioner must establish both (1) that the 
Beneficiary's combined education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience 
8 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. 
9 
The Petitioner submitted an evaluation by an evaluator at the concluding that 
the Beneficiary possesses a foreign equivalent of a U.S. degree of "Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical 
Engineering." However, the.record of evidence does not establish that mechanical engineering degree is related to the 
duties of the proffered position. 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-G-S- Inc. 
are equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty 
occupation, and (2) that the Beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty through 
progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 
states in his evaluations that the Beneficiary's education and work experience are 
equivalent to a bachelor's degree with a dual major in computer information systems and mechanical 
engineering. However, we find that evaluation does not establish that the 
Beneficiary is qualified under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). Specifically, the record of 
proceedings does not contain academic transcripts for the Beneficiary's foreign degree and there is 
no evidence suggesting that such transcripts were provided for his review. Further, with regards to 
the Beneficiary's progressive work experience, states that he relied on "detailed letter 
from his current employer." The record contains a letter from the Petitioner's parent company in 
India that discusses the projects the Beneficiary participated in and the duties associated with the 
projects. However, theletter does not contain substantive information about the specific work that 
the Beneficiary performed, such as, for instance, the level of responsibility that he exercised, the 
extent to which he was supervised, the latitude of independent judgment that the Beneficiary may 
have been allowed to exercise, or the types and levels of any substantive knowledge that the 
Beneficiary may have applied in the area of computer information systems. Moreover, the letter 
provides insufficient information as to the quality ofthe Beneficiary's work, the level of his skills, or 
any aspects of the Beneficiary's performance meriting recognition for showing a particular level of 
expertise in computer information systems. Therefore, we find that opinion letter is 
not probative under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C)( 4).10 
Further, we find that the letter from the Petitioner's parent company in India is also insufficient for 
the Service to make a determination that the Beneficiary possesses a U.S. bachelor's or higher 
degree through a combination of his education, specialized training, and/or work experience 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). While we note that the record also contains letters 
from the parent company that discuss monetary rewards and offers of promotion, the letters do not 
contain sufficient information regarding whether the Beneficiary's training and/or work experience 
included theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge or that his experience was 
gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subo~dinates who have a degree or its equivalent in 
the specialty occupation or that the Beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty 
evidenced by documentary evidence. The Petitioner, therefore, has not established that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
10 
We further note that misinterprets the so-called "three-for-one" rule. stated that three 
years of work experience is equal to one year of college training. However, 
The only section of the H-1 8 beneficiary-qualification regulations that provides for application of a three- for-one ratio is 
the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(5). However, that provision reserves its application exclusively for 
USCIS agency-determinations. 
13 
Matter of D-G-S- Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the evidence of record does not establish that (I) the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation and (2) the Beneficiary is qualified to serve in a 
specialty occupation position. In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the Petitioner to show 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o{D-G-S-, Inc., ID# 16881 (AAO May 31, 2016) 
14