dismissed H-1B Case: Industrial Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L&TT -S-, LTD. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 23, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a firm that offers product design and development solutions to various industries, 
seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "industrial designer" under the H-1 B 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 10l(a)(I5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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, California Service Center, denied the peht10n. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the 
asserted specialty occupation in accordance with the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that "[t]he totality of the 
circumstances outlined in the case demonstrated [the Beneficiary's] qualification for the specialty 
occupation."' 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that a foreign national applying for 
classification as an H-IB nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
1 
On the Fonn 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner indicated that it would submit a brief and/or additional 
evidence within 30 days. However, we have received neither. 
Matter olL&TT-S-, Ltd. 
(B) completion of the degree described in [Section 214(i)( I )(B) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l)] for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, 
and 
(ii) recogmtwn of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
Implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C) specifies 
that, to qualify to perform services in a specialty occupation, the foreign national must: 
(1) 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 [(I)] 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 [(2)] have recognition of 
expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly 
related to the specialty. 
The first three criteria are not factors in this appeal. The record reflects that the Beneficiary does not 
hold a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree from an accredited college or university; a foreign degree 
determined to be equivalent to such a degree; or an unrestricted state license, registration or 
certification authorizing full practice and immediate engagement in a specialty occupation. 
We will apply the fourth criteria, however, as the Petitioner contends that a combination of 
experience and foreign education qualifies the Beneficiary for service in a specialty occupation. 
The fourth criterion specifies two requirements for qualifying under it. The evidence of record must 
establish that the Beneficiary has attained (I) education, specialized training, and/or progressively 
responsible experience that is equivalent to completion of at least a U.S. baccalaureate in the 
specialty occupation, and also (2) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 
2 
Matter of L& TT-S-. Ltd 
The provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) supplement the degree-equivalency requirement at 
for the fourth criterion. First, they define "equivalence to completion of at least a U.S. baccalaureate 
or higher degree." Second, they specify the means for establishing that degree equivalency. 
The definitional segment at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) states: 
[F]or 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 .... 
The regulation then states that the degree-equivalency "shall be determined by one or more of 
following" five means: 
(1) 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; 
(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;2 
( 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 [(a)] 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 ((b)] the [foreign national] has achieved recognition of 
expertise in the specialty occupation as a result of such training and 
experience .... 
2 In accordance with this provision, we will accept a credentials evaluation service's evaluation of education only, not 
training and/or work experience. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of L&IT-S-, Ltd. 
The means for degree-equivalency determinations identified at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2) 
and (4) will not detain us: there is no evidence of college-level equivalency examinations or special 
credit programs to which those provisions apply. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the Beneficiary is qualified to work in the proffered position. 3 
A. Evaluation of Education and Work Experience 
The record contains two evaluations from of the each 
entitled "Expert Opinion Evaluation of Academics and Work Experience" and reaching the same 
ultimate conclusion. We will address only the more recent submission, dated February 27, 2015, 
which is the longer of the two, and we shall refer to it as "the degree-equivalency evaluation." We 
shall separately address the two major divisions of the evaluation, which introduces by the 
headings "Academics" and "Professional Experience." 
1. The "Academics" Section of the Evaluation 
stated that, based upon his review of the diploma of completion and the transcripts related 
to the Beneficiary's three-year diploma course in mechanical engineering at the 
India, it "becomes apparent" that the Beneficiary "has satisfied 
requirements that are substantially similar to those required toward the completion of an Associate's 
Degree, or the first two years of course work in a four-year Bachelor's Degree program at an 
accredited institution of higher education in the United States." 
We are not persuaded that the "Academic" section of the baccalaureate-degree equivalency 
evaluation establishes the Beneficiary's foreign education as,equivalent to a U.S. two-year degree, as 
claims. He concludes that the U.S. equivalency is "apparent," but provides no substantive 
analysis to support that position, and it cites no references, sources, or research materials as the basis 
of its conclusion. "[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crafi of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg') Comm'r 
1972)). Because the claims in the evaluation's "Academic" section are not substantiated, we accord 
them no significant weight, and we find that they are insufficient to establish U.S. equivalency of the 
Beneficiary's foreign coursework. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of L& IT-S-, Ltd 
2. The Evaluation's "Professional Experience" Section 
The second part of "Expert Opinion Evaluation of Academics and Work Experience" 
concludes that the Beneficiary's "six-plus years of employment" equate to at least two years of U.S. 
university-level coursework in mechanical engineering technology. As we shall now discuss, we do 
not agree. 
As evident in the regulatory description, to merit consideration for the beneficiary-qualification path 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) , a petitioner must submit an evaluation of training and/or 
experience that satisfies certain requirements. As well as being an accredited U.S. college or 
university, the evaluator's educational institution must 
1. Operate a program for granting college-level credit for training and/or experience; and 
2. Have designed that program to include granting of college-level credit in the relevant 
specialty- which claims to be mechanical engineering technology. 
Also, the evaluator of the training and/or experience must be an official whom the college or 
university has authorized to grant college-level credit in the relevant specialty, as part of a program 
for granting college-level credit for training and/or experience in that specialty. !d. 
submitted a letter from the Dean of the It 
states in pertinent part that 
through the 
is "authorized and qualified to grant 'life experience' credits 
program offered through the 
However, there is no evidence of the extent of the Business School Dean's 
partiCipation in or personal knowledge of the program, which the Dean's own letter 
acknowledges as one administered by an entity other than his Business School, namely, the 
The record, however, does not include a submission from 
the Dean of the or documentation that the Dean of the Business 
School is authorized to speak for the with regard to its 
program and the authority that it has delegated under that program. We find that these aspects of the 
record are sufficient reasons for us to accord no significant weight to the letter from the Dean of the 
Business School, particularly as this Dean presents no substantive information or documentation to 
support his conclusory declaration that 1s "authorized and qualified to grant 'life 
experience credits' through the program." 
We also find that the totality of the evidence, including the material submitted on appeal about the 
academic aspects of the program, indicates no course offerings or degrees in mechanical 
engineering technology that would be available through the program. Thus, the evidence of 
record establishes neither that the program awards college-credit in the relevant specialty nor 
that has authority to award college-credit in the relevant specialty. 
Further, we find that, even taken at face value, the letter from the Business School Dean does not 
establish that involvement in the program qualifies 
him as ."an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in 
5 
(b)(6)
Mauer of L& IT-S-, Ltd. 
the specialty" in a "program for granting such credit based on an 
individual 's training and/or work experience." Specifically, the Dean of the Business School states 
that is authorized to grant "life experience" credits, not "college-level credit" and not 
"college-level credit in the [pertinent] specialty" as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(l ). 
We will not speculate as to the nature, qualifying grounds, or academic weight of what is meant by 
"life -experience" credits, and the record of proceedings throws little light on this aspect of the 
program. It is the Petitioner 's burden to establish both what constitutes "life experience" as 
defined for credit-assessment in the program, and that "life experience" evaluated for credit 
in the program is substantially the same as "training and/or work experience" which must be 
the basis of college-credit awarded by a person whom a petitioner holds out as qualifying as an 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) official. For this reason, too, we find that the Petitioner has not 
established that is an official who has authority to grant college-level credit tor training 
and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college of university which has a program in 
granting such credit based on an individual' s training and/or work experience. 
In addition to the material deficiencies noted above, we also find that the evaluation misinterprets 
and misapplies the so-called "three-for-one" rule. also stated that users has "established 
that three years of work experience and/training is equivalent to one year of university-level 
training." This statement is an erroneous simplification. 
The only section of the H-1 B beneficiary-qualification regulations that provides for application of a 
three-for-one ratio is the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). However, that provision 
reserves its application exclusivel y for USCIS agency-determinations.4 Further, that provision 
requires substantially more than simply e quating any three years of work experience in a specific 
field to a ttainment of a year's worth of U.S. college credit in that field or specialty. In fact, the 
provision inserts, a number of elements of proof into the experience and/or training equation that 
both eva luators have overlook ed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) - which, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 
4)(iii)(C)( 4) introduces as one of the avenues towards establishing 
a beneficiary's qualifications- reads as follows: 
4 That the app lication is exclusiv ely a measure for USC IS is clear in the language of the regu lation. Additionally, the 
supplem entary comments to the Final Rule that first introduced the ratio into agency regulations include the following 
statements: 
For the benefit of petitioner s and applicant s who may have difficulty in seekin g and obtaini ng a determination of 
equivalency through authoritative sources, the Service adopt ed its own standard for substituti ng specia lized trainin g 
and/or experience for college-level training, and for assuring that the alien is recognized as a member of the profession. 
The three-for-one formula which will be used is based on a s urvey of relevant precedent dec isions which r eflect the 
numb er of year s of experience held by a! iens who did not have degrees, but were regarded by the Service as members of 
their professio n ... . 
Temporary A lien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 2606, 26 11 
(Jan . 26, 1990)(to be codified at 8 CFR pt. 2 14). 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of L&TT-S-, Ltd 
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. 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 [(1)] that the [beneficiary's] training and/or 
work experience included the theoretical and practical application of specialized 
knowledge required by the specialty occupation; [(2)] that the [beneficiary's] 
experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who 
have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation; and [(3] that the 
[beneficiary] 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 [beneficiary] in professional 
publications, trade journals, books, or major newspapers; 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation m a 
foreign country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significant contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
[Emphasis added.] 
Neither evaluation, the documents accompanying it, nor any other part of the record of 
proceedings provides sufficient work-experience evidence for us to reasonably conclude that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) requirements for application of the 
"three-to-one ratio." Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the evidence of the Beneficiary's work 
experience qualifies for recognition of any years of college-level credit by correct application of the 
H-lB beneficiary-qualification regulations' "three-for-one" standard. 
We also find that the evaluation's 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, for the ultimate opinion expressed in evaluation depends in material part upon 
that misapplication. 
7 
Matter of L& TT-S-, Ltd. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Jnt'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may 
give less weight to that evidence. !d. 
B. No Basis for Service Determination of College Credit under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) 
As the application of the so-called three-for-one rule is a matter solely for US CIS determination, on 
our own initiative we considered whether the documentary evidence of the Beneficiary's work 
experience would support USCIS assigning two years of college-level credit to the Beneficiary on 
the basis of the so-called "three for one" rule at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). As the appeal does 
not address the part of the Director's decision that articulated the lack of evidence sufficient to 
clearly demonstrate that all of the regulatory requirements had been met, we will be brief, in the 
interest of adjudicative economy. We concur with the Director's determination on this issue and we 
that also find that the totality of the evidence, including all of the previous employment letters in the 
record on appeal, does not establish the recognition of expertise required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
Neither the two evaluations, the documents accompanying them, nor any other part of the record of 
proceedings provides sufficient evidence for us to reasonably conclude that the work-experience 
evidence satisfies the 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(5) requirements for application of the "three-to­
ratio." Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the evidence of the Beneficiary's work experience 
qualifies for recognition of any years of college-level credit by correct application of the H-lB 
beneficiary-qualification regulations' "three-for-one" standard. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Therefore, based upon the findings articulated above, 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). As the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to serve in the alleged specialty occupation in accordance with the requirements at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) and (D), the appeal will be dismissed. 5 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o[Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
5 As this basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought, we need not and will not 
address at this time any additional issues in the record of proceedings, including the issue of whether the evidence of 
record was sufficient to establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
8 
Matter of L& TT-S-, Ltd. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L&TT-S-, Ltd., ID# 16804 (AAO June 23, 2016) 
9