dismissed H-1B Case: Marketing

Mi)4ng data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
fp- ~f persod privac) 
FILE: 
IN RE: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 192 50340 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the service center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. The petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner is a privately owned corporation whose artists create contemporary natural stone sculptures. In 
order to employ the beneficiary as a marketing manager, the petitioner filed this H-1B petition to attain 
classification of the beneficiary as a nonimrnigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
101 (a)(l S)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(lS)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner had failed to establish that the marketing 
manager position that is the subject of this petition meets the definition of a specialty occupation at 8 C.F.R. 
6 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The director's six-page decision explained in detail the petitioner's failure to satisfy any of 
the criteria of 8 C.F.R. $214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. 
8 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On the Form I-290B (Notice of Appeal), the petitioner states: "I believe the denial to be unjustified. See attached 
statement for clarification." The attached statement is a September 21, 2005 letter fiom the petitioner. The letter 
contains these statements about the petition that is the subject of this proceeding: 
I am writing this letter in response to your denial of Form 1-129 petition for Nonirnmigrant 
Worker] on behalf of my daughter, [beneficiary's first name]. Basically, you felt that the 
position applied for could be filled with someone with lesser qualifications and possibly by one 
of our current employees. Further documentation to support [the beneficiary's] application 
would be difficult to fmd in that our business is very unique so therefore I can only add some 
personal observations and comments. 
I believe that we are at a disadvantage because of the size of our firm and the need for such a 
position applied for by [the beneficiary]. Although our gross sales in 2004 were $185,000, it 
inted out that sales of almost one third of a million dollars were achieved in 2000 
and wit b& capabilities this level of sales can again be reached and surpassed. It would be 
my goal to expand our scope of work not only in Arizona but also in other states, especially in 
the golf industry [in] which [the beneficiary] has gained invaluable experience under her TN 
status. I cannot do this alone and my employees are not capable of this achievement, even with 
additional training. 
Furthermore, being almost 65 years of age and although I have no immediate plan of retiring, the 
future of [the petitioner] has to be considered. Because of the uniqueness of my work, it would 
be difficult to sell [the petitioner's business] as my clients pay for my sculptures and work that 
are created and signed only by me. Although [the beneficiary's] application is time limited, I 
would like to think that she could eventually further [the petitioner], especially since she is very 
WAC 05 192 50340 
Page 3 
creative and artistically motivated as well as knowing the business aspect. I know that these 
qualities are not relative to her application, I just thought it was worth mentioning. 
Lastly, the position applied for by [the beneficiary] does suit her to a "tee7'. We need to expand 
our product scope and level of sales. She can do it! 
If the above short list of comments are [sic] not enough to reverse the 1-129 denial, then I would 
ask you not to read this letter any further. If, however, this is not the case then please & read 
further. 
Summary of facts: 
 Our firm creates one of a kind services and products concerned with 
energylwater conservation and we negotiate and work closely with architects, developers, and 
their engineers. Because we never duplicate our products the technical understanding on 
creating new products takes an incredible knowledge and acumen to understand. We have won 
awards for our work. [The beneficiary] is unique in her specific qualifications for our position 
and well suited to step in and identify the products and markets suitable for the growth.. . . . We 
think the compelling facts warrant reconsideration by CIS [Citizenship and Immigration 
Services]. 
The petitioner fails to specify how the director made any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in 
denying the petition. As the petitioner does not present additional evidence on appeal to overcome the decision of 
the director, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Beyond the decision of the director, it is noted that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is 
qualified to serve in a specialty occupation in accordance with 8 C.F.R. $9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) and (D). The 
educational equivalency evaluation upon which the petitioner relies depends partly upon an assessment of the 
beneficiary's work experience. This assessment is materially deficient, as explained below. For this reason 
also, the petition must be denied. 
First, the evaluator does not provide a reliable analysis of how he arrived at his conclusions as to the 
educational equivalency of the beneficiary's work experience. He recounts in generalized terms work 
experience attributed to the beneficiary without explaining how that work correlates with college-level 
coursework at an accredited U.S. college or university. Without supporting analysis by which the accuracy of 
his opinions can be measured, he concludes: "In my judgment, [the beneficiary's] professional activities 
involved the application of advanced theoretical concepts and practical methodologies in marketing, market 
research, marketing planning and execution, promotions, events management, and related areas"; and "Due to 
the concentrated nature of her work experience and training in marketing, and related areas, it is my judgment 
that [the beneficiary's background] would be comparable to university-level training in marketing." It is 
noted also that the evaluator does not explain "the concentrated nature" of the beneficiary's work, and that the 
evaluator does not identify any of the "applications of advanced theoretical concepts and practical 
methodologies" that he attributes to the beneficiary's work experience. 
WAC 05 192 50340 
Page 4 
Second, the record of proceeding does not establish the evaluator as qualified to render an opinion as to the 
educational equivalency of the beneficiary's work experience. In accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
$4 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(I) to so qualify a person must 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." An evaluator's 
self-endorsement as qualified will not suffice. The AAO requires that qualifying status under 8 C.F.R. 
$5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) be established by a detailed letter from an official with authority to speak for the 
relevant educational institution, such as a dean or provost, that addresses all aspects of the qualifying 
requirements. The AAO notes that the two endorsement letters from the evaluator's university, dated June 2, 
2003 and October 23, 2003, were out of date at the time that the evaluation was prepared in June 2005. 
Further, the out-of-date endorsement letters do not state that the university has a program for granting college- 
level credit in marketing on the basis of a student's training or work experience. Also, the more recently 
dated endorsement letter states that the evaluator only "has authority to make recommendations regarding the 
granting of college-level credit for experience." 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
$ 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.