dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 12, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology services and solutions business, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "data analyst" under the H-1 B 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty 
occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
a brief~ and asserts that the Director erred in her finding. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ISSUES 
The issue before us is whether the Beneficiary would be qualified for the proffered 
position. However, beyond the decision of the Director, we will first determine whether the record 
of proceedings establishes that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
1 A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to qualify as a specialty 
occupation. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is required to follow long-standing legal standards and 
determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and second, whether" a beneficiary was 
qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc., 19 
I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r I 988) ("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]."). 
Matter of W-, Inc. 
II. 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: 
(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). USCIS has·consistently interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a 
specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto_[(, 
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). 
We note that, as recognized by the court in Defensor v. Meissner, where the work is to be performed 
for entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job _requirements is critical. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 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 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ~f W-, Inc. 
imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. ld. 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 
In the H -1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "data analyst." The 
Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary will work at its offices in New Jersey as well as 
off-site at New Jersey. In the letter of suppoti, the Petitioner provided 
the following duties for the proffered position: 
Specifically, as a Data Analyst, the beneficiary will perform network modeling, 
analysis, and planning that will maximize our company's ability to deliver more 
efficient and effective telecommunications service to our customers. The beneficiary 
will research and recommend network and data communications hardware and 
software in order to interface computer and communications equipment. As a Data 
Analyst, the beneficiary will design and implement systems, network configurations, 
and network architecture, including hardware and software technology, site locations, 
and integration of technologies. In this position, the beneficiary will develop and 
write procedures for installation, use, and troubleshooting of communications 
hardware and software. As part of the duties of a Data Analyst, the beneficiary will 
also identify areas of operation that need upgraded equipment and will adapt and 
modify existing software to meet our user's needs. As a Data Analyst, the beneficiary 
is also required to maintain needed files by adding and deleting files within the 
network and will back up files to guarantee their safety in the event of problems with 
the network. The beneficiary will be responsible for capacity planning and 
configuration assessments for routers, switches, network appliances, host, and other 
communication devices. 
According to the Petitioner, the position requires a bachelor's degree in computers, engineering, 
telecommunications, or a related field, or its equivalent. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner clarified that the Beneficiary 
will be working on the project at the end-client 
offices in New Jersey via its agreements with vendors and 
The Petitioner provided an email and an affidavit from the end-client confirming that the 
Beneficiary is working on the project. 2 In neither of these documents 
did the end~client state the Beneficiary's job duties on the project or its educational requirement for 
the position. 3 
2 
Notably, the email from the end~client states that the Beneficiary "would perform his duties as Data Modeler and Data 
Analyst." 
' The end-client did not claim that the position requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of W-, Inc. 
C. 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 proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically , the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 4 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner's claimed entry requirement of at least a bachelor 's degree in 
computers, engineering, and telecommunications, or a related field, or its equivalent, for the 
proffered position, without more, is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., sales and 
marketing, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as 
satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 
214(i)(l )(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 degrees 
in disparate fields, such as engineering and telecommunications , 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 suc;h that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an 
amalgamation of these different specialties 5 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The 
Petitioner has not made this showing. 
In addition, we find that the record of proceedings lacks substantive documentation from the end­
client regarding not only the specific job duties to be performed by the Beneficiary, but also 
information regarding whatever the client may or may not have specified with regard to the 
educational credentials of persons to be assigned to its project. . The record of proceedings does not 
contain probative documentation on this issue from, or endorsed by, 
the company that will actually be utilizing the Beneficiary's services (according to the 
Petitioner) that establishes any particular academic requirements for the proffered position. 
specialized knowledge , and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent, as 
the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation , as required by the Act. See section 214(i)( I) of the Act. 
4 
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. 
5 
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 seemingly 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 W-, Inc. 
The Petitioner did not establish the substantive nature of the work to be performed by the 
Beneficiary. We are therefore precluded from finding that the proffered position satisfies any 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive nature of that work that 
determines: (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for the particular position, which is 
the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus 
appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 
2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the 
second alternate prong of criterion 2; ( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a 
degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization 
and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. As the Petitioner has not 
established that it satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that 
the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
III. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary was not qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. However, a beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the 
job is found to be a specialty occupation. As discussed in this decision, the evidence of recorq does 
not establish that the proffered position requires a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. However, in order to address the Director's decision, we will discuss 
whether the evidence submitted was sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary was qualified to 
perform the duties of the proffered position as described. 
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. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for 
classification as an H-lB nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licepsure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (l)(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) 
(ii) 
experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such 
degree, and 
recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
5 
Matter C?f W-, Inc. 
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: 
(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; 
(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. 
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 degree or its foreign 
equivalent. Alternatively, if a 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, and/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 of the following: 
(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); 
6 
Matter of W-, Inc. 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials;6 
( 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 expe1tise in the 
specialty occupation as a result of such training and experience .... 
In accordance with 8 C.P.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 'vas 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 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; 7 
(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; 
6 The Petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credential evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 
7 
Recognized authority means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or knowledge in 
that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). A recognized authority's 
opinion must state: (I) the writer's qualifications as an expert; (2) the writer's experience giving such opinions, citing 
specific instances where past 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. !d. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of W-, Inc. 
(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 ofthe 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 USCIS application and determination, and that, also by the dear 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 
As indicated above, the Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a data analyst. According to 
the Petitioner, the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in computers, engineering, 
telecommunications, or 
a closely related field, or its equivalent. 
1. Evaluation from 
In this matter, the Petitioner submitted an evaluation from a professor of 
computer science at concluding that 
based upon his combined education and experience, the Beneficiary has attained the equivalent of a 
U.S. bachelor's degree in management information systems. Upon review, we find that 
evaluation is insufficient to meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), 
which requires "[a]n 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." 
First, the Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that has authority to grant college-
level credit. The Petitioner submitted letters from office of the registrar, dean of research 
and graduate studies, and department of computer science chair. All of these letters vaguely state 
that is "involved in the process of reviewing the credentials of foreign applicants, 
students, [and] prospective students." They also vaguely state that and other professors 
"evaluate such credentials and determine whether 
is to award or recognize credit based on students foreign education and industry knowledge." 
These letters fall substantially short of stating that has the actual authority to grant 
college-level credits. Instead, these letters suggest that authority is limited to that of 
reviewing and providing recommendations to the school. 
Furthermore, the letters do not sufficiently establish that has a program for granting such 
credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience in the particular specialty of 
management information systems, q,r another closely related field. In particular, the letter from the 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of W-, inc. 
computer science department chair states that the department has a program "in work study fashion 
for matriculated students." 8 The Petitioner supplemented the record with a print-out from 
program for granting "life experience credit" which details several other requirements under this 
program (e.g., that,the life experiences must have been gained during specific time frames , and that 
such credits "can not be applied to area(s) of concentration"). Based on this information , it appears 
that, for a degree in management information systems or a computer-related field, the program for 
obtaining "life experience credit" is limited to matriculated students who are enrolled in a work 
study program and who must also demonstrate other eligibility criteria. Due to the limitations 
imposed on the program, we cannot find that it fully equates to a program for granting college level 
credit "based on an individual ' s training and/or work experience in the particular specialty ," as 
required by the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(J). 
Even if the Petitioner were able to overcome these fundamental deficiencies regarding 
authority to grant credits and program for granting credit for training and/or 
work experience in the specialty, we still would find evaluation insutlicient. That is, 
has not demonstrated a sound factual basis for his conclusions. 
In his evaluation, states that, while he does not know the Beneficiary personally, he 
reviewed the Beneficiary's "academic documentation , resume, and employment 
verification letters." 
But neither nor the Petitioner supplied a copy of the Beneficiary's resume for the 
record of proceedings. With regard to the employment verification letters (which were submitted for 
the first time on appeal) , does not discuss the letters in detail and provides no insight 
into to how he determined that the Beneficiary ' s experiences described in the letters from former 
employers were progressive. The evidence of record does not support conclusion 
regarding whatever degree-equivalency the Beneficiary may have attained through his experience. 
For all the above reasons , we find that opinion letter lends little probative value to 
this matter. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). 
We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion. 
Matter of Sea , Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable , we may discount or give less weight to 
that evaluation. !d. . 
2. Service Determination 
We also determined that the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 's combined education 
and work experience is the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(5). 
8 The letter from the dean of research and graduate studies similarly states that "[t]his program is conducted using work­
study for matriculated studies." The letter from the registrar's office more generally states that "credit-granting policies 
may vary on a department-to-department or student-by-st1.1dent basis." 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of W-, Inc. 
First, the pertinent statute and regulation require the Petitioner to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
has obtained "progressively responsible" positions and experience in or related to the specialty. 
Section 
214(i)(2) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). 
As previously mentioned, the Petitioner submitted two letters from the Beneficiary's prior 
employers. Upon review, we find that the letters are insufficiently detailed to demonstrate the 
"progressively responsible" nature of the Beneficiary's positions. They also do not contain 
sufficient information to "clearly" demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets the requirements imposed 
by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). The letters describe the duties of the Beneficiary 'in abstract 
and generalized terms. For instance, the letter from states that the Beneficiary 
"analyzed Clinical Data from different sources using Different tools such IDQ." Further, the letter 
from states that the Beneficiary "analyzed the existing enterprise data 
warehouse and identiflied] the gaps." The letters do not further specify the Beneficiary's job duties, 
their level of responsibility or difficulty, the bodies of knowledge required in their performance, 
among other pertinent information. Moreover, none of the submitted letters establish whether the 
Beneficiary's work experience was gained while \Vorking with peers, supervisors, or subordinates 
who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation. !d. Based on the limited evidence 
of record, we cannot find that the Beneficiary's specialized training and/or work experience is 
equivalent to at least a U.S. bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. 
Finally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) imposes a separate requirement to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary "has recogpition of expertise in the specialty evidenced by at least one type of 
documentation" listed therein. The Petitioner has not met this additional requirement, either. 
Documentation to satisfy this prong of the regulation can include "[r]ecognition of expertise in the 
specialty occupation by at least two recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i). 9 However, the Petitioner submits only one letter (from 
which clearly does not meet the requirement that the documentation come from "at least 
tlvo recognized authorities." Id. (emphasis added). Because the Petitioner has not made this 
threshold showing, we will not further discuss the deficiencies with letter, including 
the lack of evidence demonstrating that he can be considered a "recognized authority" within the 
meaning of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
For the ,reasons outlined above, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary is 
qualified 
to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
9 
The Petitioner does not claim, and the record does not demonstrate, that the Beneficiary satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(ii)-(v), 
10 
Matter of W-, Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. 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. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ~fW-, Inc., ID# 150994 (AAO Jan. 12, 2017) 
II