dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-T-G-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 6, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an IT consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "Senior SAP 
Basis Consultant" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is qualified to work in a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence is sufficient to show that the Beneficiary is qualified to work in a specialty 
occupation by virtue of his "equivalent U.S. Bachelor's degree in Computer Information Systems." 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 degree referenced by section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l )(B), means one in a 
specific specialty that is characterized by a body of highly specialized knowledge that must be 
theoretically and practically applied in performing the duties of the proffered position. 
Matter of P-T-G-, Inc. 
A bachelor's degree does not, per se, qualify a beneficiary for employment in a specialty 
occupation. Rather, the position must require a degree in a specific specialty. Cf Matter of Michael 
Hertz, Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988). Further, the beneficiary must have a degree 
in that specific specialty. See Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968). 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual 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. 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states that an individual must 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 umestricted 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 [a] 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 [b] have recognition of 
expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directly 
related to the specialty. 
In addition, 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(v)(A) states: 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofP-T-G- , Inc. 
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. 
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 he or she 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 , 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 . 
II. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
A. Facts 
In its letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in computer science or a related field. 
With the visa petition , the Petitioner provided transcripts and diplomas showing that the Beneficiary 
received a three-year "Bachelor of Science" degree and a two-year "Master of Business 
Administration " degree from in India. 
The Petitioner also submitted employment verification letters as evidence of the Beneficiary's work 
experience dating between September 1996 and March 2015. Certificates pertinent to training the 
Beneficiary received in various computer-related subjects, including various types and levels of SAP 
training, were also submitted by the Petitioner . 
An evaluation prepared by an evaluator for which was 
submitted with the visa petition , states that the Beneficiar y' s education in India is equivalent to a 
"Master of Business Administration " degree awarded by a U.S. institution . 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) in this matter requesting evidence pertinent to the 
Beneficiary's qualifications to serve in a specialty occupation. In response , the Petitioner submitted , 
inter alia, another evaluation of the Beneficiary's qualifications prepared by 
of the Department of Statistics and Computer Information Systems , 
It states that the Beneficiary's education , 
combined with his training and coursework , are equivalent to a bachelor 's degree with a dual major 
in management information systems and business administration. The Petitioner also provided a 
letter from an associate dean at the stating 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of P- T-G-, Inc. 
that "has gained experience" in evaluating training , work experience, and foreign 
education. It further states: 
Professors and instructors like issue recommendations regarding 
the granting of credit (based upon factors such as duration, complexity , correlation to 
particular subjects, etc.), and the credit is subsequently conferred by University 
administrators or registrars (who have no special knowledge of, or insight into, the 
field that is being evaluated, but who are responsible for the granting of credit in the 
student transcript). Professors such as perform the actual analysis of 
the experience for which credit is granted , and are instrumental to the credit-granting 
process. 
The Director denied the visa petition finding that the evidence provided did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary is qualified for classification as a specialty occupation worker. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted a third evaluation. That evaluation was prepared by 
. an associate professor of computer applications and information systems at the 
Connecticut. It states that the Beneficiary ' s training, work experience , and 
foreign education, considered together, are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer 
information systems. 
A letter, dated August 20, 2015, from the dean of the 
states : 
In his capacity as Associate Professor of Computer Applications and 
Information Systems , authorizes the granting of "life experience " credits 
through the m 
Accelerated Learning") degree completion program offered through the 
B. Analysis 
at the 
Upon review of the evidence in the record , including evidence submitted on appeal , we find that the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary qualifies for classification as a specialt y 
occupation worker. 
The Beneficiary does not meet either of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l) and (3), as 
there is no evidence of a U.S. accredited college or university baccalaureate or higher degree, or of 
an unrestricted state license, registration or certification which authorizes him to fully practice and 
be immediately engaged in a specialty occupation in the 
state of intended employment. 
The Petitioner also has not established that the Beneficiar y is qualified to serve in a specialt y 
occupation under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2) for an individual holding a foreign 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofP-T-G-, Inc. 
degree determined to be equivalent to a U.S. accredited college or university baccalaureate or higher 
degree required by the pertinent specialty occupation. Of the three evaluations provided, only the 
evaluation by is based on the Beneficiary's education alone, without consideration of 
the Beneficiary's other training or employment experience. That evaluation states that the 
Beneficiary has the equivalent of a "Master of Business Administration" degree. The Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that such a degree is equivalent to a bachelor's degree in computer science or a 
related field, which the Petitioner stated it requires for the proffered position.1 
Next, in order to equate a beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree under 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), the provisions at 8 C.P.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); 
(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 .... 
With regard to the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l), we find that the record does not 
establish that the evaluators who have opined on the educational equivalency of the Beneficiary's 
work experience are officials who have "authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or 
1 In fact, a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, is not a degree 
in a specific specialty. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., supra. As such, if the Beneficiary's foreign education is 
equivalent only to an otherwise undifferentiated degree in business administration, it does not qualify him to work in any 
specialty occupation. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-T-G-, Inc. 
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," as required by this criterion. 
The evaluation from states that he holds posts at various colleges and universities, but 
it is not accompanied by any indication that he has the authority to grant college-level credit for 
training or work experience at any of them. 
The letter that accompanied the evaluation from states that 
evaluates training and experience and has gained experience in making determinations regarding 
granting of credit for them. It does not indicate that has authority to grant that 
credit. 
Thus, neither nor who provided opinions pertinent to the equivalency 
of the Beneficiary's training, work experience, and foreign education have been shown, pursuant to 
the requirements of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(D)(l), to be competent to render those opinions. 
With respect to the evaluation from that evaluation states that it is based on a review 
of the Beneficiary's diplomas, transcripts, employment verification letters, and resume. The 
evaluation, however, mirrors the Beneficiary's claims regarding his work experience, but the 
evaluation is not supported by the evidence provided by the Beneficiary's past employers. 
evaluation appears to be based on the Beneficiary's own assertions, rather than on the 
employment verification letters provided or any other evidence in the record. We find that the 
Beneficiary's own assertions pertinent to his work experience are an insufficient basis for 
finding that the Beneficiary's employment experience is equivalent to a bachelor's degree in 
computer information systems. 
None of the employment verification letters provided contain sufficient detail pertinent to the 
substantive nature of the work the Beneficiary performed. They are insufficient, even in 
combination with the Beneficiary's education, to show that he has the equivalent of a bachelor's 
degree in computer science or a closely-related field. For instance, the body of the employment 
verification letter from states, in its entirety: 
This is to certify that [the Beneficiary] had worked as a SAP BASIS 
CONSULTANT from April2001 to July 2004. 
During his tenure he was actively involved in various Upgrade and Support 
projects. His performance has been above expectations. He was found to be sincere, 
hardworking and having an overall expertise in his module. 
We wish him all the success for his future endeavors. 
(b)(6)
Matter of P- T-G-, Inc. 
The Beneficiary's resume divides that employment into three different sets of duties. It states that 
the Beneficiary worked from April2001 to May 2002 as an SAP Technical Associate performing the 
following duties: 
Maintained 2 system landscape, Performed Transports, Analyzing System 
errors and ABAP Dumps, Database monitoring for space utilization. Applying 
required Packages and kernel upgrade, Client copy & Client Deletion, Created 
authorizations and profiles using the profile generator tool, Reporting problems to 
OSS and solving the problems., Configured R/3 system to communicate with OSS, 
Configured Printers, Performed upgrade from SAP R/3 4.6B to 4.6C SR2 
The resume states that from June 2002 to November 2003, the Beneficiary worked as an SAP Basis 
Administrator with the following duties: 
SAP security activity, group maintenance and modification, change and 
transport system, user management, Spool Management, print trouble shooting, 
installing SAPGUI, patch uploading, client copy, kernel upgrade, performance tuning, 
backup & performance monitoring of R/3 4.6B, Oracle Database8.1.7.4, OS WinNT 
4.0. 
The resume states that from December 2003 to July 2004, the Beneficiary worked as an SAP Basis 
Consultant with the following duties: 
Responsible for Basis Up gradation to 4.7 Enterprise and support for their R/3 
System Landscape Performed system Study of the existing landscape, Recommended 
requirements for upgrade, Created project plan for upgrade, performed system copy 
& Performed test upgrade, upgraded Oracle 8.0 to 9.2.0.1 upgrade, performed 
upgrade on Wint4.0 to Win 2000 sp2, performed upgrade from 4.0B to 4.7 Enterprise 
and post upgrade support. 
Thus, while the Beneficiary's resume describes work experience in detail, the evidence provided by 
offers almost no support for the Beneficiary's claims. 
As to the Beneficiary's work for stated: 
[The Beneficiary's] responsibilities included maintained system landscape, 
performing transports, analyzing System errors and ABAP Dumps, performing 
database monitoring for space utilization, applying required Packages and kernel 
upgrades, creating authorizations and profiles using the profile generator tool, 
reporting problems to OSS and solving the problems, configuring R/3 system to 
communicate with OSS, configuring printers, performing upgrade from SAP R/3 4.68 
to 4.6 C SR2, participating in SAP security activities, performing group maintenance 
and modification, conducting user management and Spool Management, installing 
(b)(6)
Matter of P- T-G-, Inc. 
SAPGUI, performing performance tuning, backup and performance monitoring of 
RJ3 4.6B, Oracle Database8.1.7.4, and OS WinNT 4.0., being responsible for Basis 
Up gradation to 4.7 Enterprise and support for their RJ3 System Landscape, 
performing system study of the existing landscape, recommending requirements for 
upgrades, creating project plans for upgrades, and other related duties. The 
experience gained by [the Beneficiary] while working for 
can be considered commensurate with Computer Information Systems-related course 
work in Introduction to Oracle & SQL, Database Systems, Project Management -
Information Systems, Computer Software Applications, and other related areas. 
evaluation of the Beneficiary's work experience for his other employers similarly 
mirrors the Beneficiary's claims, but is not supported by the evidence provided by the Beneficiary's 
past employers. Thus, evaluation appears to be predicated on the Beneficiary's 
own assertions, rather than on the employment verification letters provided or any other evidence in 
the record. We find that the Beneficiary's own assertions pertinent to his work experience are an 
insufficient basis for finding that the Beneficiary's employment experience is 
equivalent to a bachelor's degree in computer information systems. 
The criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2) and (4) are not factors in this proceeding, as the 
record contains no evidence related to them. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3) pertains only to evaluations of education alone, 
without consideration of other training or of work experience. The letter from purports 
to be such an evaluation. The other two evaluations do not. As was explained above, 
evaluation does not indicate that the Beneficiary is qualified to work in the proffered 
position. The record contains insufficient evidence to show that the Beneficiary is qualified for the 
proffered position pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(3). 
The remaining criterion for review is 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). It allows recognition of a 
beneficiary's qualification by a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determination 
that his or her training or work experience is equivalent to U.S. baccalaureate coursework in a 
specific specialty. This criterion provides that, for each year of college-level training a beneficiary 
lacks: 
[I]t must be clearly demonstrated [1] that the alien's training and/or work 
experience included the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge 
required by the specialty occupation; [2] that the alien's experience was gained while 
working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent 
in the specialty occupation; and [3] that the alien has recognition of expertise in the 
specialty evidenced by at least one type of documentation such as: 
Matter of P- T-G-, Inc. 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least 
two recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation 2; 
(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. 
Neither the skeletal letters from the Beneficiary's former employers nor any other evidence of record 
demonstrates the extent of the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge in any 
specialty that was involved in the Beneficiary's work; that the Beneficiary's experience was gained 
while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in any 
particular specialty occupation; or that the Beneficiary has recognition of expertise in any specialty, 
as evidenced by at least one type of documentation such as those listed in this criterion. Even the 
Beneficiary's own self-certification contains insufficient information for a finding pertinent to the 
qualifications of his peers, supervisors, and subordinates or his recognition of expertise through one 
of those types of documentation. Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
The petition does not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to serve in any specialty occupation 
requiring an academic concentration or major in a computer-related specialty. The petition must be 
denied and the appeal dismissed because the evidence is insufficient to show that the Beneficiary is 
qualified under 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) and (D). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties 
of a specialty occupation position in a computer-related field. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
2 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. A recognized authority's opinion must state: (1) 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
9 
Matter ofP-T-G-, Inc. 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013) (citing Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493,495 (BIA 1966)). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-T-G-, Inc., ID# 16060 (AAO Apr. 6, 20 16) 
10