dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5777061 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 12, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "senior systems architect" under the 
H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; MatterofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&NDec. 799,806 (AAO 
2012). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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 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, 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: 
(]) 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-lC 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-lB 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, 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: 
2 
(]) 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 ofrecognized college-level equivalency examinations or special credit 
programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or Program 
on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONS!); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 1 
( 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 
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;2 
1 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. 
2 The term "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: (1) the writer's qualifications as an expe1t; (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. Id. 
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. 
By its very terms, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly for our application and 
determination, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies for the proffered position based on a combination 
of his education and progressively responsible experience. The Beneficiary earned a diploma in 
electronics in India, and the record contains information regarding 14 years of his work history. The 
record contains four evaluations of his combined education and work ex erience prepan~d bvl I 
an associate rofessor of computer systems technology at Universit od I 
,___ _ ___, L..._ ___ ___,,___......;.;;a=,n adjunct professor at University,.__ ______ a professor 
of computer science at Universit , and a rofessor of mathematics, computer 
science and information systems at'i======r'University of.___~--~-~- According to the 
evaluations from I I andl L the Beneficiary's foreign degree and wrrk exoerieuce 
equate to a U.S. bachelor's degree in information technology. The evaluations from I 
andl I state that the Beneficiary's credentials equate to a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer 
information systems. We conclude that these evaluations do not satisfy any of the regulatory criteria 
set forth above. 
The record does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l) because the Beneficiary does not possess 
a U.S. degree. It does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2) because the Beneficiary's foreign 
degree alone is not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree required by the occupation, and it does not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(3) because there is no indication the Beneficiary holds an 
unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes him to fully practice the 
specialty occupation and be immediately engaged in that specialty in the state of intended employment. 
This leaves 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) as the Petitioner's only remaining path. 
There are five alternative methods by which to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), and those 
methods are set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l)-(5). The record, however, satisfies none of 
them. 
4 
For instance, the evaluations do not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I), 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." 
The record contains supplemental information about I Is credit for experiential learning 
program. The information aboutl ts credit for experiential learning program indicates the 
following: (1) to be eligible to receive credit for experiential learning, the recipient must be a student 
who has successfully completed "at least five courses in residence at I l which must include 
the courses, Composition II and Texts and Contexts"; (2) students can earn up to 32 credits toward an 
undergraduate degree through experiential learning; (3) enrolled students can pursue the experiential 
learning option only prior to entering the last two semesters of a degree program; and ( 4) credits earned 
through the experiential learning program do not reduce I ts residency requirement of 49 
credits toward a degree. 
Moreover, we have reviewed both the information in the registrar letter as well asOUniversity' s 
website regarding the program for granting college credit based on "experiential learning," and note 
that it indicates the following: (1) credit for life experience is not evaluated during the admissions 
process atc=]University but only after the student has enrolled in the program; (2) credit is not 
awarded for experiences but rather for the student's ability to demonstrate that these experiences 
constitute college-level learning; (3) students can earn up to 15 credits for traditional degrees and up 
to 36 credits for non-traditional degrees, but in no event can they earn an entire year's worth of 
academic credits through experiential learning; and (4) enrolled students can pursue the experiential 
learning option before the completion of 96 credits. 
In addition, we have reviewed I ~s website regarding its "Prior Leaming Assessment (PLA)'' 
program for granting college credit based on "qualifying life experiences." The website indicates the 
following: (1) credit for life experience is not evaluated during the admissions process at I I but 
only after the student has enrolled in the program; (2) credit is not awarded for experiences but rather 
for the student's ability to demonstrate that these experiences constitute college-level learning; and (3) 
students can only earn up to 30 credits toward an undergraduate degree through life experiences. 
In regards tol l I I prepared his evaluation on February 19, 2019. I Is website 
regarding the program for granting college credit based on "life experience" as it existed on February 
18, 2019 indicates the following: ( 1) that credit for life experience is not evaluated during the 
admissions process atl I but only after the student has enrolled in the program; (2) that credit is 
not awarded for experiences but for the student's ability to demonstrate that these experiences 
constitute college-level learning; (3) that students can earn up to 15 credits for documented learning 
experiences, published works, or artistic performances that occurred before they started college, during 
a hiatus of at least one year in their college careers, or in their current job if they were doing the same 
job for at least two years before starting college, provided they can show that what they learned or did 
is equivalent to college level work; (4) that enrolled students can pursue the life experience option 
when they have earned between 45 and 90 credits; and (5) that credit for prior learning cannot be 
5 
applied to area( s) of concentration, liberal arts, residency, or core distribution requirements - in other 
words, this credit is always elective credit. 3 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided a letter froml Is registrar, which states that "[t]he ~I--~ 
maintains an institutionalized "Alternate Format Advanced Standing" program through which eligible 
students "may receive advanced standing degree credits for relevant work and life experience." 
Information regarding this program may be found at 
I l.edu/catalog/docs/catalog.pdf .... " We reviewed the college catalog and 
note that it states the following: 
Alternate Format Advanced Standing applies to adults who have been out of high 
school for at least five years, have a high school diploma or GED, and are eligible for 
advanced standing degree-credits that may be granted for relevant work and life 
experience. This opportunity is available in selected curricula. 
The college catalog does not offer sufficient information on what constitutes "relevant work and life 
experience" and "selected curricula." Thus, it does not establish that I I has a program for 
granting credit for training and/or work experience in the specific specialty or address the issues we 
highlighted above. 
None of the professors discuss the restrictions enumerated above that are placed on the respective 
programs for granting college-level credit based on an individual's training and work experience. The 
lack of an analysis of the context in which the universities issue college credit for life or work 
experience significantly diminishes the probative value of the 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 matter and find that the evaluations do not 
satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Nor is there sufficient evidence in the record to satisfy 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2), (3), or (4). 
We will therefore tum to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) which, as noted above, grants us the 
authority to make our own determination on the Beneficiary's qualifications. The record is not 
sufficient to satisfy that criterion either, as none of the evaluations, the documents accompanying them, 
nor any other part of the record of proceedings provide sufficient work-experience evidence for us to 
reasonably conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied one of the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v). 4 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. Therefore, 
based upon the findings articulated above, we conclude that the totality of the evidence regarding the 
Beneficiary's education and work experience does not satisfy any criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) and (h)(4)(iii)(D). 
3 See https://.__ __________________ _..edu/LIFE-EXPERIENCE/ (last visited Feb. 12, 
2020). 
4 The brief letters regarding the Beneficiary's work experience lack the detail necessary to meet these requirements. 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of 
a specialty occupation position and the appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7