dismissed H-1B Case: Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21564750 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition forNonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 15, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(15)(HXi)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 (a)(15XH)(i)(b). The H-lB 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker , 
concluding the record did not establish the Beneficiary is qualified to perfonn services in the specialty 
occupation. On appeal , the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts the Director erred by denying the 
petition. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. 
Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1184(i)(2), mandates that a specialty occupation requires 
"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." 1 Furthermore , section 214(i)(2) of the Act states 
that an individual applying for classification as an H-1 B 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 
1 We generally acknowledge thatthe core essence of this provision is the knowledge one attains in a specialty area, rather 
than a title various institutions might assign to a particular degree . 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementingsection214(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: 
(J) 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 occupation, and have recognition of expertise in the specialty 
through progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In the petition, the Petitioner stated the Beneficiary will occupy the "Hi Designer" position, which is 
similar to an art director. The Petitioner stated the position requires at least a bachelor's degree or 
equivalent in art, design, or a related field. Accompanying the petition, the Petitioner submitted a 
copy of the Beneficiary's foreign degree from the I !University of Technology Arts and 
Sciences accompanied by its English translation, a Certificate from the Faculty of the Cultural Studies 
of Integrated Design Program froml !University of Technology Arts and Sciences and its 
English Translation, a partial transcript from I School of Design reflecting 12 credit hours of 
undergraduate coursework at that institution, and a March of 2021 Academic Equivalency Evaluation 
from The Trustforte Corporation. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) and in response the Petitioner offered the same 
evidence but highlighted particular aspects of the material. The Director determined the Petitioner did 
not show the Beneficiary meets any of the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), 
and in tum that he is qualified to perform the duties of the offered position. Now on appeal, the 
Petitioner offers a brief. 
The Beneficiary does not possess: 
• A U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(J); 
2 
• An unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes him or her to fully 
practice the specialty occupation found at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(3); or 
• Education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience that is equivalent 
to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation, in 
addition to having recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions directly related to the specialty under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C)( 4). 
The only remaining possibility is for the Petitioner to demonstrate the Beneficiary possesses a foreign 
degree determined to be equivalent to a United States bachelor's or higher degree that is required by 
the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university, according to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2). 
By itself, a degree from outside the United States does not qualify a foreign worker under the H-1 B 
program. In order to equate a beneficiary's foreign degree to a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree, a 
petitioner should submit evidence of an evaluation of their foreign degree from a reliable service that 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials. This type of evaluation should identify the 
beneficiary and the institution where they attained their foreign degree. The evaluation should also 
provide sufficient analysis to support its conclusion relating to how the foreign credentials equate to a 
four-year U.S. bachelor's degree. This conclusion should not only equate to the petitioner's degree 
requirements, but also the requirements of the occupation in general. 
After reviewing the entire record, we note the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's claims 
and its failure to meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(I)-( 4). Upon 
consideration of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, 
we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, 
Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA2015) (citingMatterofBurbano, 20 I&NDec. 872,874 (BIA 1994)); 
see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts 
and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly 
resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" 
provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
The Director acknowledged the Beneficiary's education evaluation, but concluded it was not 
supported with sufficient evidence. Specifically, the Director questioned whether the documentation 
the evaluation service utilized was adequate to support their conclusion that the Beneficiary attained 
the foreign equivalent of a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Design from an accredited college or university 
in the United States. The Director raised the issue that the Petitioner only provided a partial transcript 
re la ting to the Beneficiary's enrollment atl I School of Design and the record did not contain 
the foreign degree transcripts. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not attempt to remedy that shortcoming by providing the Beneficiary's 
foreign degree transcripts, and instead it only disputes the Director's reasoning in denying the petition. 
Rather than supplying the supporting evidence the Director requested in the RFE and noted as absent 
in the denial, the Petitioner highlights the education evaluator's qualifications and asserts "it is 
common and general practice a !University of Technology for a student to complete four 
years of education at the institute." Neither the Trustforte Corporation education evaluation nor other 
evidence in the record adequately supports  this statement from the Petitioner. In this instance, the 
3 
Petitioner's statement made without supporting documentation is of limited probative value and is 
insufficient to satisfy its burden of proof Matter of Sojfici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
Further, the Petitioner appears to inquire why the Director would question an employer of their stature 
positing that if the Beneficiary meets their employment requirements based on the evidence discussed 
above, that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should find the evidence equally persuasive as 
it relates to an H-1 B petition. However, the Petitioner does not take into account that inherent with 
employing foreign workers are additional burdens a U.S. employer must satisfy when compared to 
their self-imposed requirements of U.S. workers. Part of that burden in the H-lB context is to 
demonstrate a beneficiary's foreign education is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree or higher in a 
specific specialty as described in section 214(i)(l)(B) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). A trier of 
fact should consider the issues presented and provide a sufficiently reasoned analysis. They are not 
however, required to interpret evidence in the manner a petitioner advocates. E.g., Matter of 
M-D-C-V-, 28 I&N Dec. 18, 32 (BIA 2020). 
It is a petitioner's prerogative to determine for itself what evidence it will or will not provide. But in 
refusing to provide requested material, it runs the risk of a denial for failure to satisfy its burden of 
proof. A petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the 
ultimate burden of persuasion. MatterofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, l 142n.3 (BIA 1998). We reviewed 
the Director's RFE and the reasons behind it and we conclude that their request for the Beneficiary's 
transcripts for his foreign degree to support the education evaluation was not improper. Ultimately, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's foreign degree is equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4