dismissed H-1B Case: Dental Technology

identifjring data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw-ted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 153 50662 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 2 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 153 50662 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be denied. 
The petitioner is a dental laboratory that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a dental lab technologist. The 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to 
5 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
counsel submits a brief. 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), to qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of 
the following criteria: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement 
for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its particular position is 
so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
(4) The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that knowledge required to 
perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher 
degree. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) interprets the term "degree" in the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(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 proffered position. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) the 
director's request for additional evidence; (3) the petitioner's response to the director's request; (4) the 
director's denial letter; and (5) Form I-290B and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in 
its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The petitioner is seeking the beneficiary's services as a dental lab technologist. Evidence of the beneficiary's 
duties includes: the 1-129 petition; the petitioner's April 19, 2004 letter in support of the petition; and the 
WAC 04 153 50662 
Page 3 
petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence. According to this evidence, the beneficiary would 
perform the following duties: 
[Manage] all aspects of the fabrication of oral prostheses, including job assignments, lab 
procedures, "personal" training, infection control, materials and equipment maintenance, 
quality control and customer relations; 
Read prescriptions or specifications, and examine models and impressions to determine the 
design of dental products to be constructed; 
Evaluate test results, develop and modify procedures, and establish and monitor programs to 
ensure the accuracy of tests; and 
Apply thorough knowledge of dental anatomy and oral structures to examine impressions and 
models of the teeth and use this information to make the dental restoration or appliance as 
prescribed by the dentist. 
The petitioner indicated that a qualified candidate for the job would possess a bachelor's degree. 
The director found that the proffered position, which is primarily that of a dental laboratory technician, was 
not a specialty occupation because the proposed duties are not so complex as to require a baccalaureate or 
higher degree. Citing to the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook), 
2004-2005 edition, the director noted that the minimum requirement for entry into the position was not a 
baccalaureate degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty. The director found further that the petitioner 
failed to establish any of the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
On appeal, counsel states, in part, that the director failed to consider the evidence. Counsel states further that 
the proffered position is not a "run-of-the-mill" dental technician, and that the director should not have relied 
solely on the Handbook, but should have considered other sources as well, such as the Dictionary of 
Occupational Titles (DOT) and college catalogs. Counsel also states that the record contains an expert opinion 
as evidence that the degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has established none of the four criteria outlined in 
8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Therefore, the proffered position is not a specialty occupation. 
The AAO turns first to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) and (2): a baccalaureate or higher 
degree or its equivalent is the normal minimum requirement for entry into the particular position; a degree 
requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations; or a particular 
position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree. 
Factors often considered by CIS when determining these criteria 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 1 15 1, 1 165 (D. 
Minn. 1999)(quoting HirdBlaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
WAC 04 153 50662 
Page 4 
The AAO routinely consults the Handbook for its information about the duties and educational requirements of 
particular occupations. The AAO does not concur with counsel that the proffered position, which is similar to that 
of a dental technician with supervisory/managerial duties, is a specialty occupation. 
The Handbook, 2006-2007 edition, under the category of Medical, Dental, and Ophthalmic Laboratory 
Technicians states, in part: 
Dental laboratory technicians fill prescriptions fi-om dentists for crowns, bridges, dentures, and 
other dental prosthetics. First, dentists send a specification of the item to be manufactured, 
along with an impression (mold) of the patient's mouth or teeth. Then, dental laboratory 
technicians, also called dental technicians, create a model of the patient's mouth by pouring 
plaster into the impression and allowing it to set. Next, they place the model on an apparatus 
that mimics the bite and movement of the patient's jaw. The model serves as the basis of the 
prosthetic device. Technicians examine the model, noting the size and shape of the adjacent 
teeth, as well as gaps within the gumline. Based upon these observations and the dentist's 
specifications, technicians build and shape a wax tooth or teeth model, using small hand 
instruments called wax spatulas and wax carvers. They use this wax model to cast the metal 
framework for the prosthetic device. 
In large dental laboratories, technicians may become supervisors or managers. Experienced 
technicians may teach or may take jobs with dental suppliers in such areas as product 
development, marketing, and sales. 
No evidence in the Handbook indicates that a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, is normally 
required for a dental laboratory technician job. It is noted that the beneficiary in this case holds an associate's 
degree as a dental laboratory technician conferred by a South Korean technical college. Further, although counsel 
asserts that the proffered position is not a "run-of-the-mill" dental technician job, counsel does not demonstrate 
that the dental laboratory industry is comprised of "run-of-the-mill"-level technicians and professional-level 
technologist positions. 
Counsel's reference to and assertions about the relevance of information from the DOT are not persuasive. 
The DOT classification of occupations as "Professional, Technical, and Managerial" is not based upon the 
statutory and regulatory criteria for specialty occupations that govern this proceeding. Accordingly, the fact 
that the dental laboratory technician occupation is included within the aforesaid classification is not probative. 
The DOT'S SVP rating does not indicate that a particular occupation requires the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty as a minimum for entry into the 
occupation. An SVP rating is meant to indicate only the total number of years of vocational preparation 
required for a particular position. The classification does not describe how those years are to be divided 
among training, formal education, and experience, nor does it specify the particular type of degree, if any, that 
a position would require. 
Regarding parallel positions in the petitioner's industry, the record contains an opinion from a clinical 
associate professor at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, who asserts, in part, that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in dental technology or its equivalent. The professor, however, 
does not provide any evidence in support of this assertion, such as industry surveys, authoritative studies, 
corroborative data, or other persuasive information. The Handbook is a compilation of results of nationwide 
WAC 04 153 50662 
Page 5 
industry questionnaires, surveys and personal interviews by the DOL, and indicates that there is no specific 
degree requirement for entry into the occupation. The professor's assertion that he bases his opinion on the 
curriculum of the Bachelor of Science Program in Dental Laboratory Technology at Louisiana State 
University School of Dentistry, and on similar positions among comparable sized companies within the dental 
laboratory industry, is noted. The professor, however, provides no documentation in support of his assertion, 
such as a description of the content of each course of a related bachelor's degree program, as opposed to a related 
associate's degree program. Without complete course descriptions of both degree programs and a related 
explanation of why a baccalaureate degree is required, there is little evidence to support his opinion. He did not 
indicate that he reviewed the corporate profile, the equipment utilized, the client list or the procedures employed 
by the laboratory in the production of dental wear. Thus, the record does not contain a factual basis for his 
opinion that this degree requirement is common to the dental laboratory industry in comparable positions 
among similar companies. The AAO may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable, the AAO is not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1 (Comm. 1988). The record establishes that the proposed duties do not exceed 
the scope of a dental laboratory technician with supervisory duties as described in the Handbook. The AAO is 
not persuaded that the nature of the specific duties of the proffered position is more specialized and complex than 
that of a dental laboratory technician as described in the Handbook, or that the knowledge required to perform the 
proposed duties is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor's degree in dental technology or its 
equivalent. The opinion of this professor is not sufficiently specific to establish the referenced criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) or (4). 
The record also does not include any evidence from professional associations regarding an industry standard, 
or documentation to support the complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position. The petitioner, therefore, 
has not established the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) or (2). 
The AAO now turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) - the employer normally requires a 
degree or its equivalent for the position. On appeal, counsel indicates that the record contains evidence that one of 
the petitioner's former employees holds a bachelor's degree. It is noted that the record contains a resume for an 
unnamed individual claiming to hold the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in dental science. The record, 
however, contains no evidence of this degree or that the individual was employed by the petitioner in the position 
of dental lab technologist. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for the purpose of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Cornm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Further, 
CIS must examine the ultimate employment of the alien and determine whether the position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation, regardless of the petitioner's past hiring practices. CJ Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d 
384 (5" Cir. 2000). The critical element is not the title of the position or an employer's self-imposed 
standards, but whether 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 the ~ct.' In this regard, the petitioner fails to 
1 The court in Defensor v. Meissner observed that the four criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) present 
certain ambiguities when compared to the statutory definition, and "might also be read as merely an additional 
requirement that a position must meet, in addition to the statutory and regulatory definition." See id. at 387. 
WAC 04 153 50662 
Page 6 
establish that the proffered position entails the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge attained by a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in a specific specialty. 
Finally, the AAO turns to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(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. 
To the extent that they are depicted in the record, the duties do not appear so specialized and complex as to 
require the highly specialized knowledge associated with a baccalaureate or higher degree, or its equivalent, 
in a specific specialty. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty 
occupation under 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform a specialty occupation. The record contains a credentials evaluation from a company that specializes 
in evaluating academic credentials concluding that the beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a bachelor's 
degree in dental laboratory sciences awarded by a regionally accredited university in the United States. The 
evaluation, however, is based upon the beneficiary's education and work experience. A credentials evaluation 
service may not evaluate an alien's work experience or training; it can only evaluate educational credentials. 
See 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3). Thus, the evaluator's conclusions about the equivalency of work 
experience carry no weight in these proceedings. CIS uses an evaluation by a credentials evaluation 
organization of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion only. Where an evaluation is not in accord 
with previous equivalencies or is in any way questionable, it may be discounted or given less weight. 
Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 8 17 (Comrn. 1988). For this additional reason, the petition may not be 
approved. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.