dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

MATTER OF S-S-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 27,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "software quality engineer" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary is 
not qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred by not 
acknowledging the Beneficiary's qualifications. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
We must first discuss whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We are 
required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was 
qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 569 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only 
come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls 
within [a specialty occupation]."). 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
.
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) · The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just 
any b_accalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp . v. Cherto.ff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing 
"a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
As recognized by the court in Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. The 
court held that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the 
statute and regulations as requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the 
beneficiary's services. !d. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and 
educational level of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to 
perform that particular work. 
B. Proffered Position 
The Petitioner, located in Texas, stated that it will assign the Beneficiary to an end-client located in 
Alabama to work on the ' The Petitioner submitted an 
2 
.
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
end-client letter listing the following job duties for the Beneficiary (note: errors in the original text 
have not been changed): 
• To develop, Maintain and execute automated and manual test cases and test scripts 
using QTP, Quality Center, Load Runner, Test Director, Win Runner, jMeter , 
AppScan, HTML, C# and MySQL 
• To analyze and ensure quality of applications before production using Quality Center 
(QC), Quick Test Professional (QTP), Win Runner, Selenium IDE, Selenium 
Webdri.ver, Soup UI, Rest Client, Post Master, Microsoft Testing Manager, Jasmine, 
Jira, ServiceNow and Bugzilla 
• Automate test cases on different browsers including Safari (for Mac, !phone and 
Ipad), IE, Firefox, Chrome (all platform browser and chromebooks) and Android 
browser (all android phones and tablet). 
• Review 
product design documentation to ensure that requirements stated are correct, 
unambiguous, and verifiable. 
• Consult with product development to evaluate system interfaces, operational 
requirements, and performance requirements of overall system. 
• Monitor program performance after implementation to prevent occurrence of program 
operating problems and ensure efficiency of operation. 
• Utilize the defect tracking tool to log defects and verify software chances have been 
resolved correctly. 
The record contains, inter alia, a statement of work executed between the end-client and the 
Petitioner for the Beneficiary 's services as a software quality engineer. The statement of work 
describes the project scope as follows: 
Design, Develop, Test, and Support Application 
• Multi store Management 
• Inventory 
• Reporting 
• Mobile Applications 
The end-client documentation does not state any educational requirements. According to the 
Petitioner, the proffered software quality engineer position requires at least "a Bachelor's degree in 
Science, computer science, compl!-ter engineering, electronics, engineering, physical sciences or 
equivalent." 
C. Analysis 
As indicated above, where the work to be performed by the Beneficiary is for an entity other than the 
Petitioner, evidence ofthe end-client's job requirements is critical. But here the documentation from 
the end-client does not contain any information about its minimum educational requirements for the 
3 
.
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
proffered position. On this basis alone the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. ·· 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires at least "a Bachelor's degree in Science, 
computer science, computer engineering, electronics, engineering, physical scien.ces or equivalent." 
Even if the end-client were to share the same educational requirement as the Petitioner, this still 
would be insufficient to demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner's acceptance of bachelor's degrees in general and wide-ranging fields of study such as 
computer science, science, and physical sciences is inadequate to establish that the proposed position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., 
computer science and computer engineering, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more 
than one specialty is recognized as satisfyin.g the, "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" 
requirement of section 214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly 
specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there must be a close correlation 
between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum 
entry requirement of a generalized degree such as in science, or degrees in disparate fields such as 
computer science and one of the physical sciences, would not meet the statutory requirement that the 
degree be "in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" unless the Petitioner establishes how each 
field is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required "body of highly specialtzed knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. 1 Section 214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
The issue is that it is not readily apparent that a general degree in science, or any one of the physical 
sciences, is directly related to a computer-related field such as computer science and electronics. 
Nor is it readily apparent that such generalized or disparate degrees are directly related to the duties 
and responsibilities of this particular position. In particular, the Petitioner has not explained how 
degrees in pharmacy or pharmaceutics, which the Beneficiary possesses, would provide the 
necessary knowledge to perform duties such as developing and executing automated and manual test 
cases and test scripts, and analyzing and ensuring quality of applications before production. The 
Petitioner did not, for example, submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading to a 
degree in pharmaceutics and establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the proffered 
job duties. 
The Petitioner submitted a position evaluation from stating that the proffered 
position requires knowledge of "development and coding of computer software systems" and "core 
1 
In other words , while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we do not so 
narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit , as a 
minimum entry requirement , degrees in more than one closely related specialty . See section 214(i)( I )(B) of the Act; 
8 C .F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes •even seemiQgly disparate specialties providing , again, the evidence of 
record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position . · 
4 
.
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
concepts of mathematics, programming and computer science and/or engineering." 
also states that "[g]eneralized knowledge of computer science, or IT alone, is not sufficient." He 
concludes that the proffered position requires a degree in "a technical computing field" such as 
computer science or computer information systems, and that a pharmaceutics degree is "closely 
related" to one of those "technical computing" degrees. But neither he nor the Petitioner has 
explained in detail how a pharmaceutics degree would provide the requisite knowledge of computer 
science or IT to perform the proffered position. 
For this reason, we are not persuaded that a pharmaceutics degree is directly related to a computer­
related degree.2 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'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. 
Accordingly, we cannot find that the proffered position has a normal minimum entry requirement of 
a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent. In other words, we cannot 
find that the proffered position requires anything more than a general bachelor's degree. The 
requirement of a general bachelor's degree will not support a finding that this particular position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. See Royal Siam Corp., 484 F .3d at 14 7 (a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree will not justify a finding that a particular position qualities for 
classification as a specialty occupation. Cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. at 560 ("The mere 
requirement of a college degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer 
perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility."). 
II. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
Absent a determination that the proffered position is in fact a specialty occupation, there is no ,basis 
on which the Director could have determined whether the Beneficiary is qualified or unqualified to 
perform the duties of t!}e claimed specialty occupation. 
Nevertheless, for the sake of a more comprehensive analysis, we will address the evidence of record 
and explain why it is insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the 
duties of the proffered position assuming arguendo we found it to be a specialty occupation 
requiring a computer-related degree. 
A. Legal Framework 
The statutory and regulatory framework that we must apply in our consideration of the evidence of 
the Beneficiary's qualification to serve in a specialty occupation follows below. 
2 We will discuss evaluation in more detail, infra. 
5 
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for 
classification as an H-IB 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 ofthe 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. 
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: 
(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 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. 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(v)(A) states: 
General. If an occupation requires a state or local license for an individual to fully 
perform the duties of the occupation, an alien (except an H -1 C nurse) seeking H 
classification in that occupation must have that license prior .to approval of the 
petition to be found qualified to enter the United States and immediately engage in 
employment in the occupation. 
6 
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
Therefore, to qualify a beneficiary for classification as an H -1 B nonimmigrant worker under the Act, 
the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary possesses the requisite license or, if none is 
required, that the beneficiary has completed a degree in the specialty that the occupation requires. 
Alternatively, if a license is not required and if the beneficiary does not possess the required U.S, 
degree or its foreign degree equivalent, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary possesses both 
(1) education, specialized training, or progressively responsible experience in the specialty 
equivalent to the completion of such degree, and (2) recognition of expertise in the specialty through 
progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
In order to equate a beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree, the provisions 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) require one or more ofthe following: 
(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 
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; 
( 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 .... 
In accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5): 
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 
7 
.
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
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 occupation; 3 
(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. 
It is always worth noting that, by its very terms , 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly 
for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to determine, and that, also by the clear terms of the 
rule, experience will merit a positive determination only to the extent that the record of proceedings 
establishes all of the qualifying elements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) , including, but not 
limited to, a type of recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation. 
B. Analysis 
The Beneficiary possesses a foreign bachelor ' s degree in pharmacy and a U.S. master's degree in 
pharmaceutics with a concentration in cosmetic science. She is currently enrolled at · 
to pursue a master's degree in management science. 
In support of the petition , the Petitioner submitted several evaluations of the Beneficiary ' s education 
and work experience . We will address each evaluation below. 
3 Recognized authority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or knowledge in 
that field, and the expert ise to render the type of opinion requested . 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) . A recognized authority's 
opinion must state : (I) the writer 's qualification s 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 ; (3) how the conclu sions were 
reached ; and ( 4) the basis for the conclusions supported by copies or citation s of any research material used. ld 
8 
.
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
1. 
The Petitioner submitted an evaluation of education and work experience from a 
professor in the School of Management at concludes that the 
Beneficiary has the equivalent to a US. bachelor's degree in pharmaceutical sciences and a U.S. 
master's degree in industry pharmacy and cosmetic science. also concludes that "there 
has been a nexus between the nature of the beneficiary's degree and the position description. 
Beneficiary has necessary education in related Information Technology field relates [sic] to the 
proposed position." 
However, as discussed above, does not explain how the Beneficiary's pharmacy­
related degrees are directly related to a degree in "a technical computing field" (such as computer 
science or computer information systems) which he claims is necessary to perform the proffered 
position. We incorporate our previous discussion on the matter. Moreover, while 
claims to have knowledge about the field of computer science and IT, he does not claim to have 
particular knowledge about the field of pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences. The record does not 
demonstrate that possesses sufficient knowledge to support his conclusions about the 
"nexus" between the Beneficiary's pharmacy-focused education and the position's computer­
focused duties. 
The record also does not reflect that has the authority to grant college-level credit for 
training 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 or work experience. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). While the record contains recent letters from associate deans ofthe college 
of management and technology at these letters state only that 
"provides associated support to the Program Director by making recommendations regarding 
transfer credits, evaluating credentials, and/or Professional Certifications/Experience," and "has both 
the knowledge and authority to assess, evaluate[], and recommend[] college level credits." The 
authority to provide support and recommendations, however, falls significantly short of having the 
authority to actually grant credits. 
The record contains other letters stating that "has the authority to make decisions 
regarding transfer credits." However, these letters were written in 2008 and earlier - prior to the 
more recent letters referencing only his authority to make recommendations. These older letters are 
also vague with respect to his area of authority and the school's program( s) for granting such credit 
in the area of the specialty. 
2. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits a credentials evaluation report from 
This report concludes that, based on the combination of the Beneficiary's education and 
work experience, she possesses the "[ e ]qui valent to US Bachelor of Science with a major in 
9 
.
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
Computer Systems Quality Analysis from an institution of postsecondary education in the United 
States." 
This evaluation from is deficient. Foremost, in accordance with the provision at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3) , we will accept a credential evaluation service's evaluation of education 
only, not training or work experience. Also, there is insufficient evidence that the writer, 
has the authority to grant college-level credit for training 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 or work experience in full accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). 
The evaluation states simply that is a "Professor, 
with the ability to grant academic credit for prior work experience in all subjects and at all levels, 
without limitation." This statement is not corroborated by independent, objective evidence 
recognizing her position, authority, or the school's program(s) for granting such 
credit in the area of 
the specialty. 
3. 
The Petitioner additionally submits an optmon letter and evaluation from of 
and Like the evaluation 
from concludes that the Beneficiary possesses the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree in computer systems quality 
analysis based on the combination of her education and work 
experience. 
evaluation is deficient in several aspects , too. For instance , the record lacks evidence 
that he has the authority to grant college-level credit for training 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 or work experience. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) (emphasis added). At 
issue here is employment at "a fully accredited 
private university in and a "non-United States 
university chartered in the '' 
For these purposes, we interpret the term "accredited college or university" to mean only an 
accredited college or university within the United States. The overarching provision of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) relates to equivalency to a " United States baccalaureate or higher degree " 
(emphasis added). Moreover, the Department of Education, which oversees the accreditation 
process through which a college or university can become "accredited," can only recognize 
accreditors whose 
accreditation activities are limited in geographic scope to a State, a region of the 
United States (as further defined), or the United States. 20 U.S.C. § 1099b; 34 C.F.R. § 602.11.4 
4 For more information about the accreditation process , see, e.g., the Department of Education's (DOE) webpage entitled 
"Overview of Accreditation in United States," available at https://www2:ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred / 
accreditation .html#Overview (last visited Apr. 26, 2017) . This webpage states that DOE' s "recognition of accreditors 
does not extend to the approval or accreditation any accreditor may grant to foreign institutions or programs ." /d. 
10 
.
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
The Petitioner thus has not demonstrated how or 
constitute an "accredited college or university" within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). 
Instead, the Petitioner submits a "certificate of recognition" issued by 
stating that its "Academic Board finds the curricula and programs of 
as equivalent to the curricula and programs of the Regionally and nationally accredited universities 
in the United States of America." The Petitioner also indicates that 
ts "listed m the 
Nonetheless, the Petitioner has not established that either 
or the is an accrediting agency 
or association recognized by the Department of Education, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) . 
For all of the above reasons, we find that the evaluations from on behalf 
of and are not sufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary 's qualifications for the 
proffered position. Contrary to the Petitioner 's suggestion that we have no authority or "mandate " to 
question foreign credentials evaluations, we may, in our discretion, discount or give less weight to an 
evaluation of a person's foreign education where that opinion is not in accord with other information 
or is in any way questionable. Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). We 
exercise that discretion in this instance. 
4. Service Evaluation 
Under the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) , we conclude that the evidence of record is 
insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 's education and experience is equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. 
As discussed earlier, we find that the Beneficiary's pharmacy-related degrees are not directly related 
to a "technical computing" degree, or to the duties and responsibilities of the proffered position. 
Thus, in order to demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position (if it were a specialty occupation), the Petitioner would need to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary possesses three years of relevant, specialized training or work experience for every year 
ofrelevant college education lacked. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). · 
Additional information can also be found in the DOE's accredit ation database available at 
https://ope.ed.gov/accreditation /lndex.aspx (last visited Apr. 26, 2017). This webpage explains that DOE's recognition 
of accrediting agencies "is limited by statute to accreditation activities within the United States." !d. It also states that 
"(a]lthough many recognized agencies carry out accrediting activities outside the United States, these actions are not 
within the legal authority of the Department of Education to recognize, are not reviewed by the Department, and the 
Department does not exerci se any oversight over them." !d. 
II 
.
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
In the Beneficiary's affidavit, she claims to have completed two separate courses through 
one culminating in a :'Diploma of Software Engineering in June 2009," and one 
culminating in an "Honors Diploma in Computer Applications in July 2010." In support the 
Petitioner submitted a certificate from certifying the Beneficiary's completion 
of the course "Honors Diploma in Software Applications" from August 2009 to July 2010. The 
Petitioner also submitted (:kprovisional certificate and memorandum of marks for what appears to be 
the same course, "Honors Diploma in Software Applications," with a final examination held in July 
2010. The Petitioner did not submit corroborating evi!lence of the Beneficiary's claimed completion 
of the software engineering course which ended in June 2009. Nor did the Petitioner submit 
additional pertinent information about the course the Beneficiary completed, such as the duration, 
content, or intensity of that course. 
Similarly, the Beneficiary claims in her affidavit to have worked with 
as a software quality engineer from August 2010 to July 2011. 
Again, the Petitioner did not submit corroborating evidence of this claimed employment. We note 
that the Beneficiary's resume does not list either her claimed work experience at or the 
computer courses from 
The Petitioner submitted two employment letters from We have 
reason to question the accuracy and reliability of these letters. One letter attests to the Beneficiary's 
employment "since July 2014." The other inconsistently attests to her employment "from July 
2013." Moreover, both letters attest to the Beneficiary's performance of computer-related duties 
such as designing, developing, testing, and implementing software solutions. However, the record 
shows that the Beneficiary's employment with was pursuant to her curricular practical 
training (CPT) obtained through her enrollment at 
to pursue a master's degree in the field of management science. 
According to the curricular practical training cooperative agreement between and 
the Beneficiary's training objectives at were to gain 
skills and experiences in project management and business communication. Specifically, the 
Beneficiary's training objectives are listed as (1) an understanding of aspects of planning, 
engineering and management to develop strategic project plan execution; (2) an experience of 
interactions between people, processes and technologies in a real-life work environment; 
(3) emphasize practical insights and experiential aspects of project management in modern settings; 
and (4) an understanding of the enterprise structure to develop and complete suceessful projects. 
There is no indication within this cooperative agreement (or elsewhere in the record) that the 
Beneficiary's training at specifically involved designing, developing, testing, and 
implementing software solutions, among other computer-related duties. 5 
5 It is not evident based on the record how the Beneficiary's computer-related work experience at 
related to his or her major area of study" as required for CPT. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)( I O)(ii)(A). 
12 
is "directly 
.
Matter of S-S-, LLC 
The Petitioner must resolve the incongruities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner has not 
done so here. 
In any event, we find that work verification letters do not clearly demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's training or work experience included the theoretical and practical application of 
specialized knowledge required by the specialty occupation; that her experience was gained while 
working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty 
occupation; and that she has recognition of expertise in the specialty evidenced by at least one type 
of documentation required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). Without more, we cannot find the 
evidence of record sufficiently reliable to conclude, through a Service evaluation, that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties Of the proffered position. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Even if it had demonstrated the proffered position's qualification as a specialty occupation (which it 
has not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of 
the proffered position. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-S-, LLC, ID# 321091 (AAO Apr. 27, 2017) 
13