dismissed H-1B Case: Farm Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20  mass Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 01 274 52069 Office :: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: sp 2 1 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(lS)(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, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 0 1 274 52069 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the service center denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition and the matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. A timely appeal was filed by the petitioner. The 
AAO dismissed that appeal on June 24, 2002, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. The petitioner filed a motion to reopen 
or reconsider pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5. The AAO granted the motion, affirming the prior decision of the 
AAO, and denied the petition. The matter is again before the AAO on motion to reopen or reconsider. The 
AAO grants the motion to reopen, and affirms the decisions of the AAO to deny the petition. 
The petitioner is a grain and livestock firm that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a farm manager. The 
director denied the petition, finding that the proposed position fails to qualify as a specialty occupation and 
the beneficiary is not qualified to perform a specialty occupation. 
On motion, counsel states that the submitted letter from Dr. a professor at Ohio State 
University, was previously unavailable. Counsel refers to this letter, the private applicator license issued to 
the beneficiary by the Ohio Department of Agriculture, and previously submitted evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary qualifies for the proposed position. Counsel asserts that the AAO decision of February 2, 
2004 concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary qualifies for the proposed position 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I), and counsel points out that the AAO decision did not discuss the 
beneficiary's qualifications under 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(j), which allows CIS to determine whether a 
combination of education and experience, or experience alone, is equivalent to a bachelor's degree. 
The MO grants counsel's motion. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1184(i)(2), states that an alien applying for classification as an H-1B 
nonimrnigrant worker must possess full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is 
required to practice in the occupation, and completion of the degree in the specialty that the occupation 
requires. If the alien does not possess the required degree, the petitioner must demonstrate that the alien has 
experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and recognition of expertise in the 
specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), to qualify to perform services in a specialty occupation, an alien 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) 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 fkom 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 
LIN 0 1 274 52069 
Page 3 
(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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), equating the beneficiary's credentials to a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree shall be determined by one or more of the following: 
(1) An evaluation fiom 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 andlor 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); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which specializes 
in evaluating foreign educational credentials; or 
(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. 
When CIS determines an alien's qualifications pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), 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 wlvle 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 occupation1; 
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. 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 
LIN 0 1 274 52069 
Page 4 
(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 of the specialty occupation. 
The evidence in the record fails to establish that the beneficiary possesses the educational equivalent to a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree in farm management pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). The record contains 
certificates reflecting that the beneficiary completed studies or training, or both, at Bicton College of 
Agriculture, East Budleigh, in London; but the certificates do not indicate the length of the studies andlor 
training, and no independent evidence in the record has this information. Although letters from Dr. 
an associate professor with the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, and Dr. 
with The Ohio State University, state that the beneficiary completed two years of 
England, no inde endent evidence in the record corroborates their statements. The 
record also contains a letter from -an associate professor with The Ohio State University 
Extension, which stated that the beneficiary had completed three years of study in the United Kingdom; again, 
no independent evidence in the record corroborates her statement. Thus, the submitted certificates do not 
establish equivalence to a U.S. baccalaureate degree in farm management. 
The AAO now turns to the beneficiary's prior work experience, and considers whether it included the 
theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge reauired by the suecialtv. The letter from Dr. 
A A - 
dated February 24, 2004, aid the July 12, 2002 leker from ~r. discuss 
personal observations of the beneficiary during his work experience with Scoto Farms/Barnes Farms. Both 
Dr. and Dr. conclude that the beneficiary has the educational equivalent to a 
baccalaureate degree in farm management based on the beneficiary's two years of agncultural training in 
England, and 3 '/2 years of U.S. internship training. However, the value of their conclusion is diminished by 
two documents in the record: the document from the United States Information Agency, Exchange Visitor 
Program Services, which is signed September 29, 2000, and states that the beneficiary's internship training in 
the United States was for a period not to exceed 18 months; and the letter from Scioto Farms that describes 
the beneficiary's 18 month internship. Thus, the conclusion drawn that is by Drand 
conflicts with the evidence in the record. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
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. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
LIN 01 274 52069 
Page 5 
objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the tmth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 
(BIA 1988). 
Since no evidence indicates the length of studies or training that the beneficiary completed at Bicton College of 
Agriculture, the letter from !describing the beneficiary's responsibilities during his 18-month 
internship is insufficient to establish the specialized training andlor work experience that must be demonstrated 
for each year of college-level training that the beneficiary lacks. The AAO can only apply 18 months of 
internship training towards each year of college-level training that the beneficiary lacks. The beneficiary's 18 
months of work experience, therefore, does not demonstrate equivalence to a bachelor's degree in farm 
management as three years of specialized training andlor work experience must be demonstrated for each year of 
college-level training the alien lacks. 
The record reflects that the beneficiary's experience was gained while worlung with peers, supervisors, or 
subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary has 
recognition of experbse in the-specialty byo is an expert in farm management.  he jetter 
from states that the beneficiary's work experience with Scioto Farms was gained while 
working with the owners/operators of Scioto Farms, and that the owners/operators have advanced degrees 
from Ohio State University College of Food, Apcultural, and Environmental Studies. Nonetheless, the 
evidentiary record reflects that the beneficiary's work experience does not demonstrate equivalence to a 
bachelor's degree in farm management. 
As related in the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of 
the petition on this ground. 
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 AAO's previous decisions are affirmed. The petition is denied.