dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9799461 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 26, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology staffing provider, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred, and that the Beneficiary possesses the requisite qualifications. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that 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: 
(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-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-1B 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: 
(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 
(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 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;1 
(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 
1 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 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. Id. 
3 
(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 (USCIS) 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us is whether the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary was qualified, under the 
H-lB statutory and regulatory requirements, to serve in what the Petitioner claims to be a 
specialty-occupation position. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the minimum education 
requirements for the proffered position are a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in computer science, 
or a related field of study. The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary possesses the equivalent of a 
bachelor's degree in computer science by virtue of education gained in India and in the United States, 
and through his work experience. However, if the proffered position is a specialty occupation as the 
Petitioner claims, the Beneficiary is not qualified. 2 
The Petitioner initially documented that the Beneficiary has a master's degree in finance obtained at 
the University! I in the United States. The college transcript from this program of study, which 
commenced in the Spring term in 2015 and concluded in the Fall term of 2016, does not reflect 
coursework in computer science, or a related field. Additio~ the Petitioner submitted a 1999 
"Three Year Degree Course Examination[] Mark Sheet" froml__J University in India, which shows 
that the Beneficiary passed five physics, four mathematics, and ten chemistry examinations in that 
year. It also submitted a diploma from that institution for a bachelor of science degree in chemistry 
(three-year course). 3 The Petitioner provided documents about the Beneficiary's work history, 
including: 
I A January 2015 ~-----------~ letter certifying that the 
Beneficiary worked for that entity as a "Senior Manager Operation" from 
November 2012 through January 2015. 
I December 2012 I I letter appointing the 
Beneficiary as a "Senior Manager - Operations," effective in November 2012. 
I A January 20131 I letter certifying that the Beneficiary was 
employed by that entity as a "Senior Manager - Sales and Operations" from August 
2008 until November 2012. 
2 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position, 
the Beneficiary's qualifications, and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we 
have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 The Petitioner also submitted a consolidated grade sheet from D University in India for a technical degree in computer 
science and engineering for an individual other than the Beneficiary. The Director asked the Petitioner to explain why this 
evidence was included in the petition in her request for evidence (RFE). The Petitioner has not provided an answer to the 
Director's question on this topic. 
4 
I A September 2007 I I letter appointing the Beneficiary as "Deputy 
Manager - Direct Sales - Liabilities" as of that date. 
I An October 2007 ,___ ______ ___, letter reflecting the Beneficiary's 
employment as a "Territory Manager Marketing" from January 2005 until October 
2007. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner provided an opinion letter from D I I [K-], which it asserted was evidence that "the Beneficiary has a bachelor's degree 
or its equivalent in [c]omputer [s]cience through a combination of education, work, and/or work 
experience," which we will later discuss. 
The record does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(1) because while the Beneficiary holds a 
U.S. master's degree in finance, he does not possess the Petitioner-asserted U.S. bachelor's degree 
required by the specialty. It does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2) because the 
Beneficiary's foreign diploma is not equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, 4 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. Upon review of the 
record in its entirety, we concur with the Director that the evidence of record does not satisfy any of 
the regulatory criteria set forth above. 
Importantly, an applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit 
at the time of filing the benefit request and must continue to be eligible through adjudication. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). In this case, the petition was filed on April 2, 2019; thus the record must reflect 
that the Beneficiary was qualified to perform services in the specialty occupation as of that date.5 We 
will discuss our determination that the Petitioner has not established that the combination of the 
Beneficiary's foreign degree, his education gained in the United States, and his work experience is 
equivalent to at least an accredited U.S. college or university bachelor's degree in computer science, 
which is the asserted degree-equivalency upon which the Petitioner bases its beneficiary qualification 
claim. In application of the preponderance of evidence standard, eligibility is to be determined not by 
the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
A. Foreign Degree 
As discussed, the documentary evidence of the Beneficiary's forei~ree consists of copies of a 
1999 "Three Year Degree Course Examination [] Mark Sheet" froml__J University in India, which 
shows that the Beneficiary passed five physics, four mathematics, and ten chemistry examinations in 
that year, as well as a three-year course diploma from that institution. 
4 Professor K- concluded in his opinion letter that the Beneficiary's foreign education is equivalent to "90 credits of 
academic studies towards a [bachelor's] degree in [m]athematics," not an equivalent to a United States baccalaureate or 
higher degree required by the specialty occupation. As we will later explain, we also determine that Professor's K-'s 
opinion letter is unpersuasive. 
5 On appeal, the Petitioner submits a college transcript for the Beneficiary's program of study which commenced during 
the summer of 2018 and continued through 2019. We will only consider and discuss the coursework that the Beneficiary 
completed prior to the date of filing of the petition. 
5 
The 1999 certificate of marks does not identify any specific courses upon which the examination was 
based. For instance, the mathematics examinations are listed in the marks sheet respectively as 
"MATH I, 11, 111, [and] IV," which provides no insight into the actual mathematics course content 
upon which the Beneficiary was examined. Notably, the Petitioner has not presented an academic 
transcript identifying the particular courses that the Beneficiary completed to qualify for the 
examination. 
On their face, the copies of academic records establish no more than that the Beneficiary completed 
three-years of coursework that culminated in the award of "the Degree of Bachelor of Chemistry 
(Three Year Degree Course)" from a foreign university in India. So, the academic records submitted 
by the Petitioner are not sufficient in themselves to establish that the Beneficiary attained the 
equivalent of at least a U.S. bachelor's degree (by the way, requiring a four-year course of study) in 
computer science or a closely related field. 
B. Evaluation of Foreign Education and Work Experience by Professor K-
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has submitted evidence that Professor K-, in accordance with 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(1), may in certain circumstances be "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." For instance, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the associate vice provost of his 
university who states: 
[Professor K-] provides associated support to the Program Director by making 
recommendations and granting transfer credits, evaluating education credentials, 
and/or professional certification/experience. Transfer Credit/Waiver of credit granting 
courses issues vary on a student-by-student bases for such factors as educational 
credentials and training, work experience in a related field, or discipline. 
Professor K- further explains his role in "making recommendations and granting transfer credits" for 
his university, indicating "[the university] has a program for granting college-level credit based on an 
individual's training and/or work experience. That program, [] turns on assessments of what are 
known as prior learning assessment portfolios." The Petitioner provided a page from the university's 
website, which describes two avenues for students to obtain "prior learning credits." The first avenue 
involves the student's creation of a portfolio, described as: 
[A] collection of resume, narrative essay, and supporting evidence which documents 
how [the student's] prior job, volunteer, military, corporate training, or other relevant 
experience aligns to the learning objectives of specific academic courses or programs. 
Reviewed by trained faculty member assessors and/or subject matter experts, these 
portfolios provide an acceptable basis for awarding [the student] credit for prior 
college-level learning gained outside the traditional classroom. 
6 
The second avenue involves the student enrolling in an eleven-week, five elective-credit course which 
"guides [the student] step-by-step through creating a portfolio that documents how [the student's] 
college-level learning aligns with specific [university] courses, programs, and learning objectives." 
The material submitted indicates that the professor is engaged as a "trained faculty portfolio assessor" 
in activities where a student puts forth a variety of evidence to demonstrate how his or her prior 
training, volunteer experience, and work experience "aligns" with specific academic courses or 
programs offered by the university. 
The professor further addresses his own qualifications to opine on the Beneficiary's qualifications for 
the specialty occupation, and concludes, among other things, that the combination of the Beneficiary's 
foreign education and work experience are "comparable to four-year college/university-level training 
in computer science." We have carefully reviewed the professor's evaluation and conclude that the 
Petitioner's reliance on the professor's analyses and conclusions is misplaced. 
First, the professor observes that the Beneficiary's foreign degree curriculum "includes course work 
such as [m]athematics, [p]hysics, and [c]hemistry related subjects." He concludes that "based on the 
nature and duration of the [Beneficiary's foreign] coursework," his foreign degree is equivalent to "90 
credits of academic studies towards a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Mathematical Sciences from an 
accredited college or University in the United States." He describes the process that he utilized to 
arrive at his conclusions included "[c]alculations based on course durations, grades obtained and 
composition in the above-mentioned curriculum [which] satisfies similar requirements to the 
completion of equivalent degree in United States as credits mentioned." 
In this case, the record lacks evidence, such as an official academic transcript identifying the particular 
courses that the Beneficiary completed to obtain his three-year diploma in chemistry, not mathematics. 
Based on the sparse evidence in the record about the Beneficiary's foreign degree program, the 
Petitioner has not substantiated how the professor performed "[c]alcuations based on course durations, 
grades obtained and composition," for the Beneficiary's foreign course of study. We recognize that 
the professor may have relied on documents not included in the record, but given the vague, inadequate 
material that we have reviewed, we conclude that the basis for his analysis in this regard has not been 
demonstrated. Notably, the Petitioner did not provide a copy of the underlying analysis that the 
professor asserts form the basis for his conclusions. 
Moreover, the professor generally asserts that his evaluations "are based on standards and practices 
recommended by the~-------------~----~- and UNESCO 
recommendations and guidelines." However, he did not sufficiently discuss the standards and 
practices that he used to reach his conclusions in the instant matter. While the professor provided a 
specific reference for his analysis, "Reference Page #101, Education Equivalency Analysis: India & 
USA Degrees, ISBN 978-93-5261-987-0," he did so without further discussion about the significance 
of this reference material and the information used from this document, if any, to make his 
determinations. Lastly, the Petitioner did not submit this reference material in support of the 
professor's evaluation for our review. 6 
6 Any suggestion that USCIS must proactively procure such reference material to substantiate the professor's conclusions 
would be a shift in the evidentiary burden in these proceedings from the Petitioner to USCIS, which would be contrary to 
section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
7 
In summary, Professor K- does not articulate a persuasive basis for his recognizing that the 
Beneficiary's foreign degree is equivalent to ninety credits of mathematics coursework towards a 
specific degree at an accredited U.S. college or university. Here, the professor does not present an 
analytical foundation adequate for us to accept his conclusions. We determine that the Petitioner has 
not offered sufficiently probative evidence in this regard. 7 
Second, Professor K- provides discussion and conclusions about the Beneficiary's "professional 
experience in computer science," as follows in pertinent part (verbatim): 
Having reviewed the work experience in detail, it is my opinion as a published scholar 
in the field and as someone with the relevant professional experience, that these duties 
are specialized and require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge. 
[The Beneficiary] assumed professional responsibility and has achieved recognition of 
expertise in specialty occupation as a result of such training and expertise. 
Additionally, the duration, nature and quality of his work experience demonstrates the 
theoretical knowledge normally found in university or college-level academic 
coursework. Further, the [Beneficiary's] employment history reflects experience and 
training in positions of progressively increasing responsibility from Territory Manager 
Marketing to Senior Manager Operations. Also, the work experience illustrates the 
application of relevant and specialized skills and training by superiors and peers - these 
demonstrate the equivalent of university training. [The Beneficiary's] more than 10 
years' experience indicate the duration equivalent of more than three additional years 
of Bachelor's-level academic training/certification in COMPUTER SCIENCE. 
On the basis of the nature of the professional work experience and training in 
COMPUTER SCIENCE, I hereby affirm that [the Beneficiary's] professional 
experience qualifications are comparable to four-year college/university level training 
in COMPUTER SCIENCE. 
The professor also asserts that USCIS "mandates an equivalency ratio of three years of work 
experience for one year of University or College training." However, he confuses the standards upon 
which he can make such determinations. The only section of the H-lB beneficiary-qualification 
regulations that provides for application of a "three-for-one" ratio analysis is the provision at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). That provision reserves its application exclusively for USCIS agency­
determinations. Id. Further, that provision requires substantially more than simply equating any three 
years of work experience in a specific field to attainment of a year's worth of U.S. college credit in 
that field or specialty. 
7 Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
8 
Notably, the professor's conclusory analysis of the Beneficiary's work experience appears to fall far 
short of the analytical rigor required of him to grant academic credit through the evaluation of "prior 
learning assessment portfolios," which present evidence on how a student's prior training, volunteer 
experience, and work experience "aligns" with specific academic courses or programs offered by the 
university where he is employed (as claimed by the professor). For instance, the professor does not 
put forth analysis regarding the particular academic computer science courses, if any, that align with 
the Beneficiary's claimed work experience in his letter. Additionally, the Beneficiary's work 
experience letters referenced by the professor within his analysis, (which were included in the 
submitted evidence about the Beneficiary's work history which we itemized above), do not provide: 
I Job duties or position descriptions; 
I Descriptions of the employers' business operations; 
I The organizational hierarchy within which the Beneficiary was employed, and whether his 
work colleagues possessed a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation; or, 
I The training he received while employed, if any. 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence sufficient to substantiate the professor's assertions that the 
job duties performed by the Beneficiary during his prior employment were "specialized and require 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge;" that he "achieved 
recognition of expertise in specialty occupation," and; how "the duration, nature and quality of his 
work experience demonstrates the theoretical knowledge normally found in university or college-level 
academic coursework." Rather, these letters identify the Beneficiary's job titles and periods of 
employment with the various organizations, who based solely on the company names in the letterhead 
appear to be operating within the communication and banking industries. For example, while the 
letters indicate the Beneficiary was employed in positions bearing managerial or marketing-related 
job titles, such as "Territory Manager Marketing," "Deputy Manager - Direct Sales - Liabilities," 
and "Senior Manager - Operations," they provide no indication that the Beneficiary was employed in 
positions bearing job titles typically associated with computer science occupations. 
Here, the professor does not provide a reasonable basis for his opinion to show, more likely than not, 
that the listed documents he reviewed demonstrate that the Beneficiary was formerly employed in 
computer science occupations in the manner alluded to within his letter. We also incorporate our 
previously expressed concerns regarding his lack of cogent analyses of the evidence regarding the 
Beneficiary's academic credentials, which is similarly applicable here. Without more, the professor's 
conclusory statements are insufficient to substantiate his opinions about the Beneficiary's 
qualifications. While the professor may have reviewed material that is outside of this record of 
proceeding to arrive at his conclusions, (which we have not been afforded the opportunity to review), 
we determine the professor's generalized analysis is inconsistent with the skeletal evidence provided 
about the Beneficiary's foreign employment in the record, and as a result is of little probative value.8 
8 Such unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. Id. 
9 
We also observe that the professor puts forth competing conclusions about the equivalency of the 
Beneficiary's work experience. On the one hand he states the Beneficiary's foreign education is 
equivalent to "90 credits found in Mathematics curriculum," and "[t]he 10 years of [the Beneficiary's] 
professional experience is equal to 90 credits in Computer Science," the combination of which "is 
equal to 120+ credits of study in Computer Science and sufficient to be considered a major discipline." 
On the other hand, he opines that [the Beneficiary's] professional experience qualifications [alone] 
are comparable to four-year college/university level training in [computer science]." The Petitioner 
must resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Documents submitted for consideration as expert opinions are subject to the same scrutiny under the 
preponderance-of-evidence standard as any other evidence submitted into the record. Accordingly, 
we examined Professor K-'s evaluation for relevance, probative value, and credibility, within the 
context of the totality of the evidence. For reasons previously stated, we determine that the professor's 
evaluation is insufficient to establish that that the Beneficiary possessed a combination of education, 
training, and/or experience equivalent to a degree in a specific specialty closely related to the claimed 
specialty occupation. 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted by the petitioner as expert 
testimony. Matter of Caron International, 19 l&N Dec. 791 (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. Id. USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the 
final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert 
opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 
500, n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not 
purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to 
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."'). For the sake of brevity, we will not address 
other deficiencies within the professor's analyses of the proffered position. 
Therefore, we conclude there is insufficient evidence in the record to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(1)(2), (3), or (4). 
C. Beneficiary-Qualification Criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) 
The language at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) reserves the criterion for "[a] determination by the 
Service [(i.e., our agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS))]," based upon its 
evaluation of the record's evidence, that the Beneficiary [(1)] acquired the equivalent of the U.S. 
degree required by the specialty occupation, through a combination of education, specialized training, 
and/or work experience in areas related to the specialty and [(2)] that the alien has achieved recognition 
of expertise in the specialty occupation as a result of such training and experience." (Emphasis added.) 
As discussed, the copies of foreign academic records establish no more than that the Beneficiary 
completed three-years of coursework that culminated in the award of "the Degree of Bachelor of 
Chemistry (Three Year Degree Course)" from a foreign university in India. So, the academic records 
submitted by the Petitioner are not sufficient in themselves to establish that the Beneficiary attained 
the equivalent of at least a U.S. bachelor's degree (by the way, requiring a four-year course of study) 
10 
in computer science or a closely related field. Moreover, the Petitioner has not presented an academic 
transcript identifying the particular courses that the Beneficiary completed to qualify for the 
examination. While the Beneficiary attended a three-year program of study in India, the evidence 
presented is insufficient to determine whether the coursework taken therein is relevant to the 
obtainment of a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits a copy of the Beneficiary's master's degree diploma in finance, 
and associated college transcript. While he took courses in finance, such as "essentials of accounting," 
"financial management & strategy," and "international finance," the Petitioner has not explained how 
such coursework comprises, in part, the course curriculum for a bachelor's degree in computer science 
or a related field. 
The Petitioner submits on appeal a transcript for the Beneficiary's subsequent program of study for a 
PhD in Business Administration at the University I I in the United States, which 
reflects that prior to the date of filing of the petition, he passed graduate-level courses in applied 
learning practicum, physical security, cloud computing, analyzing and visualizing data, business 
intelligence, business continuation planning & disaster recovery, organizational leadership and 
decision making. The Petitioner asserts that some of these courses assist the Beneficiary in the 
proffered position. We acknowledge that courses, such as cloud computing, are applicable to a 
bachelor's degree in computer science. However, collectively considering the Beneficiary's academic 
education, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's education, obtained in India and in the 
United States, equate the Beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree in computer 
science or a related field. 
Turning to the Beneficiary's work experience, 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). 
The Petitioner submitted letters from the Beneficiary's prior employers. As addressed above, the 
Petitioner has not submitted letters or other evidence that substantiate its claim that the Beneficiary 
was previously employed in positions within the computer science occupations. 9 Setting aside that 
the Beneficiary appears to have been employed in marketing and operational management positions 
that are unrelated to the computer science industry, we conclude 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 demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets the requirements 
imposed by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
The letters allude to the Beneficiary's employment in positions bearing job titles that suggest he was 
employed in positions of responsibility, but the letters lack descriptions of the duties that the 
Beneficiary performed during his tenure with his past employers. The former employers do identify 
the period during which they employed the Beneficiary and his position titles, but give no further 
insight into the nature, scope, and complexity of his work assignments. Further, the letters do not 
describe the nature of the business activities that these organizations engage in. The limited material 
9 We incorporate our previous discussion regarding the evidence provided regarding the Beneficiary's previous 
employment. 
11 
presented does not identify the scope and complexity of the business operations in which the 
Beneficiary was engaged to give sufficient context that he was employed in "progressively 
responsible" positions during his tenure there. The letters also do not describe the body of knowledge 
required for the performance of his job duties. 
Moreover, the submitted letters from former employers do not establish whether the Beneficiary's 
work experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree 
or its equivalent in the specialty occupation. Id. Based on the limited evidence in the record, we 
cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's asserted specialized training and/or work experience is 
equivalent to at least a U.S. bachelor's degree in the specific specialty, which the Petitioner maintains 
is a bachelor's degree in computer science, or a related field of study. 
In summary, while the record contains some information regarding the Beneficiary's work history, it 
does not establish what his actual work experience entailed; that this work experience included the 
theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the proffered position; that 
it was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who held a bachelor's degree or 
its equivalent in the field; and that the Beneficiary achieved recognition of his expertise in the field as 
evidenced by at least one of the five types of documentation delineated in 8 C.F.R. §§ 
214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v). Without more, the evidence of record is not sufficiently reliable to 
conclude, through a Service evaluation, that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. 
111. CONCLUSION 
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. 
12