dismissed H-1B Case: Hospitality Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
identifying data deletad 
prevent clearly unwd 
invasion of peM"d ~~VWY 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: EAC 04 258 52558 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 2 5 2&#j 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(l 5)(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. 
/--l n 
EAC 04 258 52558 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, 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 gourmet restaurant. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as an assistant restaurant manager. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classifL the beneficiary as a nonirnmigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
9 1 lOl(a)(l5>W)(i)(b). 
On October 14, 2004, the director denied the petition determining that the record did not establish that the 
beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner 
observes that the petitioner was not offered an opportunity to submit additional evidence on whether the 
beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a United States bachelor's degree. Counsel submits additional evidence to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses the requisite education and progressively responsible, broad-based 
experience equivalent to a bachelor's degree in the hospitality management field. 
The issue in this matter is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary is qualified to perform 
the duties of a specialty occupation. 
Section lOl(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b), provides, in part, for the 
classification of qualified nonimmigrant aliens who are coming temporarily to the United States to perform 
services in a specialty occupation. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an alien applying for classification as an H-1B 
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 (l)(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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), to qualify to perform services in a specialty occupation, the 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 from an accredited college or 
university; 
EAC 04 258 52558 
Page 3 
(3) Hold an unrestricted State license, regstration or certification which authorizes him or 
her to llly 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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) the Form 1-129 and supporting documentation; (2) 
the director's October 14,2004 denial letter; and (3) the Form I-290B with the petitioner's November 10,2004 
letter in support of the appeal and supporting documentation. The AAO reviewed the record in its entirety 
before issuing its decision. 
In a September 13, 2004 letter submitted in support of the petition, the petitioner listed the specific duties of 
the assistant restaurant managerial position offered to the beneficiary as: 
Apply knowledge of contrac? negotiation, industry standards for high-end food service 
functions, pricing, nutrition, sanitation, and management of restaurant staff. Liaison between 
kitchen and Front-of-House staff and directing all customer service and quality assurance for 
special events, groups, and VIP customers. 
Apply knowledge of methodologies for effective communication, evaluating staff, 
establishing efficient kitchen and restaurant policies, developing shareateam responsibilities 
in accordance with principles of human resources management. Direct Front-of-House staff, 
human resource issues for Front-of-House staff. 
Apply knowledge of methods and means of financial control including planning, strategic and 
short-term budget planning, accounting methods for daily, weekly, monthly monitoring of 
Front-of-House, financial reporting. 
The petitioner noted that the beneficiary had completed a vocational degree in 1996 and two years of 
restaurant management training in 1998. The petitioner asserted that the beneficiary had also completed six 
years of progressively responsible employment in hospitality management at some of the most renowned 
restaurants and hotels in the world, including a management trainee position with the petitioner in an H-3 
classification. The petitioner also provided extensive documentation establishing that it is an internationally 
known, award-winning restaurant. 
On October 14, 2004, the director denied the petition determining that the beneficiary's experience in a J-1 
and H-3 program is not experience equaling college education. The director determined that the beneficiary's 
training status while employed could not be considered experience that is progressively responsible, which 
would contribute toward establishing it as college equivalent. Thus, she concluded that the petitioner had not 
established that the beneficiary's education and experience credentials are equivalent to a bachelor's degree. 
EAC 04 258 52558 
Page 4 
On appeal, the petitioner provides additional documentation and asserts the documentation is sufficient to 
establish that the beneficiary's education and experience is equivalent to a United States bachelor's degree in 
hospitality management. The petitioner provides an "evaluation" dated November 11, 2004 by a professor of 
hospitality law at Johnson & Wales University, Providence, Rhode Island. The professor states: 
Based on my professional experience, detailed in the attached curriculum vitae, I conclude 
that the position offered [the beneficiary] is of a professional nature, that his academic 
credentials equate to a two year United States degree (or two years toward a United States 
Bachelor's degree) and that he has engaged in and completed six years of progressively 
responsible employment experience. I further conclude that based on the cumulative 
combination of his academic credentials and on-the-job experience, [the beneficiary] has 
achieved the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in Hospitality Management. 
[The beneficiary's] academic studies completed in 1996 in Hospitality Management are 
equivalent to an Associate's degree in Hospitality Management offered by an accredited 
university in the United States as confirmed by myself. 
[The beneficiary's] six years of apprenticeships, practical experience, and training 1998 to the 
present reflect progressively responsible employment at the [sic] some of the world's very 
finest properties where he received mentored, formal training on-the-job. 
Mentored formal training on-the-job experience at leading restaurants has allowed [the 
beneficiary] to receive training, assignments, input, monitoring, knowledge and slull from 
some of the leaders in the field in areas including day-to-day management of full-service 
restaurant operations, profitability and pricing, internal controls in hospitality operations, 
wine and food pairing principles, food service as a merchandising operation, hospitality 
financial management, managerial leadership, organizational communication, staff training, 
staff evaluation, managing organizational change, quality assurance in food and beverage 
service, inventory control in restaurant operations. In addition to reflecting a broad-base of 
knowledge, these are topics of courses in our Bachelor's degree program at Johnson & Wales 
and are topics typically only learned about through completion of a university degree course 
in the field. 
The petitioner also provided: (1) a November 1, 2004 letter from the Culinary Institute of America indicating 
that formal apprenticeship and mentored traineeships are used to develop skills after completion of 
post-secondary education; (2) a November 4, 2004 letter from the Institute of Culinary Education; (3) a 
November 5, 2004 letter from indicating that on-the-job training provides progressively 
responsible, mentored professional development; (4) a November 2, 2004 letter from the New York State 
Restaurant Association indicating that typically young American professionals in the restaurant business seek 
mentored training opportunities after aduatin from college in one of the hospitality management fields; (5) 
a November 4, 2004 letter restaurant similarly situated as the petitioner, indicating that 
its trainees receive mentored training concerning all facets of food and beverage management and that the 
EAC 04 258 52558 
Page 5 
training is broad-based and progressively responsible; and (6) a November 8, 2004 letter from Garrett Hotel 
Group indicating that [on-the-job] training is universally acknowledged as progressively responsible 
employment at its properties. 
The petitioner asserts that the documentation it provides on appeal is sufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary has earned the equivalent to a United States bachelor's degree in hospitality management and thus 
is qualified to perform the duties of this specialty occupation. 
The petitioner's assertion is not persuasive. The petitioner has not provided evidence that the beneficiary 
holds a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in hospitality management, a foreign degree determined 
to be equivalent to a United States baccalaureate or higher degree, or that the State requires or that the 
beneficiary has an unrestricted license, registration, or certification to practice in the hospitality field. The 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(I) through (3). 
Therefore to establish the beneficiary's qualifications to perform the duties of a specialty occupation, the 
petitioner must prove that the beneficiary's combined education, training, and employment experience provide 
him with the equivalent of a baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation. To 
determine eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), the AAO relies upon the five criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D). A beneficiary who does not have a degree in the specific specialty may still 
qualify for H-1B status based on: 
(I) 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 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; 
(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. 
EAC 04 258 52558 
Page 6 
Although the petitioner has submitted an evaluation of the beneficiary's training experience, that evaluation 
does not come 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 that has a program for granting such credit based on an 
individual's training and/or work experience. 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I). The November 11, 2004 
letter signed by the professor of hospitality law at Johnson & Wales University, Providence, Rhode Island 
does not indicate that he has authority to grant college-level credit, nor is it submitted with a letter from a 
Johnson & Wales University official confirming that authority and the existence of a university program for 
granting such credit. The AAO requires independent evidence of the evaluator's authority, typically evidence 
from a dean or provost that verifies the evaluator's authority to grant college-level credit. 
Neither does the record contain results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special credit 
programs or an evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service that specializes in 
evaluating foreign educational credentials. 8 C.F.R. $$ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2) and (3). Although the record 
contains letters from culinary institutes, similarly situated hotels, and hotel associations, these organizations 
speak generally regarding on-the-job training and have not certified or registered the beneficiary as an 
individual possessing a certain level of competence in the hospitality specialty. 8 C.F.R. 
$ 214.2@(4)(iii)(D)(4). 
Thus, the AAO must consider whether the beneficiary's work experience coupled with his education is 
sufficient to establish that he is qualified to perform the duties of the specialty occupation. In this matter it is 
not. When evaluating a beneficiary's qualifications under the fifth criterion, CIS considers three years of 
specialized training and/or work experience to be the equivalent of one year of college-level training. In 
addition to documenting that the length of the beneficiary's training and/or work experience is the equivalent 
of four years of college-level training, the petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's training andfor 
work experience has included the theoretical and practical application of the specialized knowledge required 
by the specialty occupation, and that the experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or 
subordinates who have degrees or the equivalent in the specialty occupation. The petitioner must also 
document recognition of the beneficiary's expertise in the specialty, as evidenced by one of the following: 
recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two recognized authorities in the same 
specialty occupation; membership in a recognized foreign or U.S. association or society in the specialty 
occupation; published material by or about the alien in professional publications, trade journals, books or 
major newspapers; licensure or registration to practice the specialty in a foreign country; or achievements 
which a recognized authority1 has determined to be significant contributions to the field of the specialty 
occupation. 
' Recognized authority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special shlls or 
knowledge in that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. A recognized authority's 
opinion must state: (1) the writer's qualifications as an expert; (2) the writer's experience giving such opinion, 
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. 8 C.F.R. $2 14.2(h)(4)(i)(C)(ii). 
EAC 04 258 52558 
Page 7 
In that the record provides no evaluation of the beneficiary's degree in hospitality management from the 
Academy of Versailles reviewed by a reliable credentials evaluation service listing the courses completed for 
that degree, the record does not establish that the beneficiary has the equivalent of two years of college 
education. Further, the various letters submitted on the beneficiary's behalf do not establish that his work in 
the United States as a mentored trainee is equivalent to an additional two years of college-level education. 
The letters submitted do not indicate that their authors have reviewed the beneficiary's job duties while in 
training, nor do the letters submitted sufficiently describe the beneficiary's peers, supervisors, or his 
subordinates' credentials. Moreover, the letters submitted on the beneficiary's behalf do not qualify as 
recognition of his expertise in the specialty as they do not address the beneficiary's specific work experience. 
Thus, the record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's training andlor work experience includes the 
theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by a specialty occupation; that the 
beneficiary's experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a 
degree or degree equivalent in a specialty occupation; or that the beneficiary's "expertise" in a specialty 
occupation has been recognized. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's 
qualifications to perform the duties of a specialty occupation under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
3 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). 
The petitioner has not submitted argument or documentation on appeal sufficient to overcome the director's 
decision on this issue. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has the requisite qualifications to 
perform the duties of a specialty occupation. For this reason, the petition will not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO finds that the description of the duties of the proffered position 
is so nonspecific that it precludes the AAO from determining precisely what tasks the beneficiary would 
perform for the petitioner on a daily basis. Without a comprehensive description of the work to be performed 
by a beneficiary, the petitioner cannot establish that the tasks the beneficiary would perform are of sufficient 
complexity to impose the minimum of a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). Nor can the general description satisfy either prong of the second criterion, that the 
degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or that the 
position is so complex or unique that only a degreed individual can perform the work. 8 C.F.R. 
!j 2 14.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). Further, without a specific description of the beneficiary's daily duties, the petitioner 
cannot demonstrate that it has a history of employing degreed individuals to perform such duties, as required 
by the third criterion, or establish these duties as being so specialized and complex that the knowledge 
required to perform them is usually associated with a degree, the requirement set forth in the fourth criterion. 
8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3) and (4). The record does not establish that the actual duties associated 
with the proffered position fulfill any of the alternate criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation. For this 
additional reason, the petition will be denied. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), agd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
EAC 04 258 52558 
Page 8 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with 
the petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.