dismissed H-1B Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 6057275 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 30, 2020 
The Petitioner, an operator of exchange markets, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"treasury manager" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . 1 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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position . On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director erred in denying the visa petition. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l)(B) 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 ."2 Furthermore, section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an 
individual applying for classification as an H-1 B nonirnrnigrant 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 (l)(B) for the occupation, or 
(C)(i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 We gen erally acknowledge that the 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 implementing section 214(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: 
(]) 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 folly 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 
On the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "treasury manager." The 
Petitioner stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent in economics, 
financial services, accounting, or a related field. Aecom an ing the petition, the Petitioner submitted 
an education and experience 0
0
inion from a rofessor in the business management 
department atl , ~ , I University of~--~ The Director issued a request 
for evidence (RFE) and in response, the Petitioner submitted two additional evaluations from other 
professors. The Director determined the evidence submitted in support of the Beneficiary's 
qualifications did not satisfy the regulatory requirements. 
The Beneficiary in this case did 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)(]); 
• A foreign degree determined to be similarly equivalent according to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2); or 
• An unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes him or her to folly 
practice the specialty occupation found at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(3). 
The only remaining possibility exists under the education, specialized training, and/or progressively 
responsible experience provision of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). Two relevant methods exist for 
equating the Beneficiary's education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
2 
experience to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation. The first 
consists of an evaluation from a qualified official with the authority to grant college-level credit for 
training and/or experience, while the second is a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
determination. 3 The relevant portions of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D) provides in 
pertinent part: 
Equivalence to completion of a college degree. For purposes of paragraph 
(h)( 4)(iii)(C)( 4) of this section, equivalence to completion of a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree shall mean achievement of a level of knowledge, 
competence, and practice in the specialty occupation that has been determined to be 
equal to that of an individual who has a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty 
and shall be determined by one or more of the following: 
(]) 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; 
(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 .... 
A. Degree-equivalency 
1. Eligibility under 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(D)(]) 
The Petitioner initially offered an academic equivalency evaluation from I I which was 
dated in March 2017 and indicated that the Beneficiary's foreign degree was equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in business administration with a concentration in financial services. This letter was 
supported by a March 2016 letter froml I the dean of1-- ___ __,s business school at 
I I The issue with this evidence is not only that L--~--J--1.1~:., predated the 
professor's correspondence by one year, but also that he did not state that~----~ assessed the 
authority to grant credit in the specialty area. 
Additionally, the Petitioner did not present evidence that I I has a program to grant 
college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty. The correspondence within the 
record equates to assertions from the parties, but it does not serve as probative evidence supporting 
the Petitioner's claims. Such claims are therefore equivalent to assertions rather than evidence to support 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I) and (5), respectively. The Petitioner does not claim, and the record does not 
demonstrate, the Beneficiary may qualify under the remaining provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2)-(4). 
3 
the declarations, and when made without supporting documentation are oflimited probative value and do 
not carry the weight to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. 4 As noted, the regulations specifically 
mandate that the evaluator possess the authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or 
experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university with a program for granting such 
credit. 
In sum, because the evidence of record has not established thatl lis an official who has 
authority to grant college-level credit in the pertinent specialty at an accredited college or university 
for training and/or experience, his opinion regarding the U.S. college-level course equivalency of the 
Beneficiary's training and work experience merits no significant weight under the standard at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(l). 5 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner obtained a March 2019 evaluation from I I a 
professor a~ I University. The Petitioner submitted two March 2018 letters in support of the 
professor's authority to grant college-level credit for life experiences. The credit for life experience 
program discussed in the two support letters is a process in which candidates petition for credits 
through an examination, a license or certificate through specialized training, an experiential learning 
essay, advanced placement coursework during secondary school, or military service. 6 The Petitioner 
did not demonstrate thatl !possessed material to evaluate the Beneficiary's credentials 
through one of the methods in which he is authorized to actually grant college-level credit, which 
significantly diminishes the evidentiary value of his evaluation. 
Also, the Petitioner offered a third ornion letter within the RFE response dated in February 2019 from 
I I a professor at University. Althourh the primary focus of that letter was whether 
the offered position qualified as a specialty occupation, Is letter is the only opinion letter 
the Petitioner relies on within the appeal. Again, the Petitioner supported I Is 
~ndence with an outdated verification letter from December 201 7. Within his letter, D 
L___Jdid not provide sufficient analysis of the Beneficiary's foreign degree and experience, instead 
indicating that "[h ]er educational credentials have been previously evaluated as the equivalent to the 
fulfillment of a Bachelor of Business Administration degree with a concentration in Financial Serv~ 
from an accredited institution of higher education in the United States." We do not consider LJ 
I I's reliance on other evaluators to be a sufficient determination, and this material is inadequate 
to meet the 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I) requirements. 
Additionally, the evaluation letters are not in accord with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D) for a separate reason. In this instance, when professors I land 
I ldetermined that the Beneficiary's foreign degree combined with a certain number of years 
of experience equated to a U.S. baccalaureate degree, each person exceeded their authority as 
recognized by the regulation. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I) allows an evaluation 
of an individual's "education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience ... " 
describing the official's qualifications and authority "at an accredited college or university." 
4 Mattero(Sofjici, 22 T&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
5 Where an expert evaluation is in any way questionable, we may discount it or accord it with less weight. Matter of Sea, 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817,820 (BIA 1988). ~---~ r---7 
6 See Credit for Life Experience, I I University, https://~.edu/academics/colleges-and-
schoo ls/school-of-professional-studies/school-of-professional-studies-undergraduate/ credit-for-life-experience/. 
4 
This regulation does not authorize the qualified official to assess the foreign national's education, 
training, and experience in the context of whether such experience satisfies the "three for one" rule 
under the regulation at 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). Instead, it is merely describing the official's 
qualifications and authority "at an accredited college or university." In contrast, only users may 
perform the analysis of whether a beneficiary's "three years of specialized training and/or work 
experience" may be substituted "for each year of college-level training the alien lacks" under 8 e.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). As a result, each professor exceeded their authority on this matter. This 
serves as an additional element diminishing the evidentiary value of these opinion letters. 
2. Eligibility under 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) 
We now tum to 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), which grants the agency the authority to make our 
own determination on the Beneficiary's qualifications. By its very terms, 8 e.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly for users to decide. This provision inserts a number of 
elements of proof into the analysis, and it requires substantially more than simply equating any three 
years of work experience in a specific field to attainment of one year's worth of U.S. college credit in 
that field or specialty. 
a. Equivalency through Training and/or Work Experience 
The regulation at 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) describes the requirements to equate a foreign 
worker's specialized training and/or work experience to a qualifying degree through the following: 
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 .... 
For the Petitioner to satisfy the equivalency provision, it must meet all of the qualifying conditions 
within the first paragraph at 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), which contains two primary elements. 
The first is attainment of an equivalency to the required degree through a combination of education, 
specialized training, and/or work experience in areas related to the specialty. Such an equivalency 
contains multiple mandatory sub-elements: 
1. Three years of specialized training and/ or work experience must be demonstrated for each year 
of college-level training the alien lacks; 
2. The alien's training and/or work experience must have included the theoretical and practical 
application of specialized knowledge required by the specialty occupation; and 
3. The alien's experience must have been gained while working with peers, supervisors, or 
subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation. 
5 
The inability to meet any portion of these sub-element requirements will result in an adverse 
determination. While the experience letters appear to meet sub-element 1, the Petitioner did not off er 
probative material demonstrating her background satisfies sub-elements 2 and 3. Nor do the letters 
from the professors comply with sub-elements 2 and 3. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the Beneficiary's equivalence to the completion of the requisite degree, and this shortcoming could 
serve as the end of our inquiry. 
b. Recognition of Expertise 
Nevertheless, we will evaluate the remaining requirement. The second primary element a petitioner 
must meet in addition to the first element is that the alien has recognition of expertise in the specialty 
evidenced by at least one type of documentation listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v), 
which provides in pertinent part: 
It must be clearly demonstrated that ... 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 occupation; 
(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 Petitioner does not claim, and the record does not demonstrate, the Beneficiary qualifies under 
the provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(ii)-(v), and as a result we will only analyze 
eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i). The construct under which we assess the 
evidence focuses on the regulatory definition of a "recognized authority," which states that such an 
authority: 
" ... means a person or an organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills 
or knowledge in that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. 
Such an opinion must state: 
(]) 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; 
6 
(3) How the conclusions were reached; and 
( 4) The basis for the conclusions supported by copies or citations of any research 
material used. 7 
While the Petitioner offered experience letters, this correspondence does not satisfy the requirements 
for a recognized authority's opinion, as the letters lack all four requirements of a "recognized 
authority." 8 Turning to the opinion letters from the professors as the Petitioner's remaining 
"recognized authority" evidence, we conclude those too are insufficient to satisfy the regulatory 
requirements for recognized authorities. We reiterate thatl I did not sufficiently analyze the 
Beneficiary's qualifications, instead deferring to the determination of others. As a result, we will not 
consider his opinion under the "recognized authority" provision. 
Considering! Is letter, he stated his qualifications as an expert relating to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i). However, this evidence does not sufficiently meet the remaining 
requirements under this provision. Specifically, even though he provided his background and 
indicated that he is published and has presented on this topic at conferences,! I did not offer 
his experience providing these opinions, nor did he cite to specific instances where his opinions were 
accepted as authoritative and sufficient, and by whom. 9 
Furthermore, we observe that his explanation of how he reached his conclusions is also insufficient, 
and he did not support the basis for his conclusions with copies or citations of any research material. 10 
In particular, we note that he essentially offered a conclusory assertion relating to why the 
Beneficiary's foreign bachelor's degree was equivalent to three years of sufficient education in the 
United States. Additionally,! I essentially recounted the information within the job letters 
without describing why that information was relevant. For instance, he did not elucidate how any of 
the duties the Beneficiary performed as described within her experience letters contribute to her 
expertise in the specialty occupation. For all of these reasons, I Is letter does not qualify 
as evidence of a recognized authority under the regulation. 
As the Petitioner must provide recognition of expertise by at least two recognized authorities, and I nl] 
one letter from a professor remains, it is unnecessary that we provide a detailed analysis of 
I ~ letter other than to note that it suffers from the same shortcomings asl ts 
letter. 
The Petitioner has not offered evidence that satisfies any of the five criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v) to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has achieved an equivalence to 
completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty. Ultimately, we conclude 
that the evaluations' misapplication of a truncated and materially incomplete version of the true "three­
for-one" rule is in itself sufficient grounds for dismissing the appeal and denying the petition, because 
the ultimate opinion of the evaluation depends in material part upon that misapplication. Therefore, 
7 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
8 See the definition ofrecognized authority at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
9 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(ii) under the definition ofrecognized authority within subparagraph (2). 
10 Id. at (3)-( 4). 
7 
we conclude that the totality of the evidence regarding the Beneficiary's foreign education and work 
experience does not satisfy any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) and (D). 
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. 
8