dismissed H-1B Case: Precious Metals / Electronics Recycling

MATTER OF ECSR-T-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 6, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a precious metals refinery, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "general manager" 
under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 had not demonstrated 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 a brief and additional 
evidence in support of the visa petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 desc~ibed in paragraph (l)(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, 
and 
Matter of ECSR-T-, LLC 
(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. 
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 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); 
2 
Matter of ECSR-T-, LLC 
(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 
(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 
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 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., 
3 
Matter of ECSR-T-, LLC 
foreign country; or 
(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) 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. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
As indicated above, the Petitioner is a precious metals refinery and seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
as a general manager.3 The Petitioner provided the following general summary of the proffered 
position (verbatim): 
The General Manager is responsible for planning, directing, and coordinating the 
daily operations of the Facility. He/she is responsible for sustaining, ensuring, and 
improving the facilities departmental and organizational operations, through: 
performance, productivity, efficiency and profitability. These goals are to be met 
through the use of effective methods and strategies that are to be created by the 
General Manager and his/her Supervisor. The General Manager must be 
professional, knowledgeable, and skilled in the Electronics Recycling and Precious 
Metals Recovery Industry; and have specific knowledge and skilled in industry 
specific equipment, processes, preventative maintenance, and industry standards and 
regulations. In addition to these requirements the General Manager is expected to be 
very knowledgeable in the many dynamic incoming materials and hazards associated 
with in the electronic recycling industry. The job of the General Manager has great 
emphasis on technical skills. 
The Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in health and 
safety, engineering, "or equivalent of Seven (7) years or more experience in the field of Electronic 
Recycling." The Petitioner additionally requires seven to nine years of knowledge and/or experience 
in the principles and practices of organizational effectiveness and operations management, business 
and management, finance and accounting, human resources, and project management.· 
3 Although the Petitioner indicated on the H-1 8 petition that it is requesting "[ c ]ontinuation of previously approved 
employment without change with the same employer," the Petitioner also indicated that it previously employed the 
Beneficiary as an operations manager, and is now seeking to accord him the new title of general manager. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ?f ECSR-T-, LLC 
According to the Petitioner, the Beneficiary possesses a foreign associate's degree in hotel tourism 
and restaurant management, and "has been in the hazardous waste and recycling industry for over 15 
years." 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review, we find 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. 
The Petitioner does not assert that the Beneficiary's claimed associate's degree in hotel tourism and 
restaurant management, or his claimed coursework and certifications in supervisory skills, materials 
'handling equipment instruction, and transportation of dangerous goods handling, are relevant to our 
determination of the Beneficiary's equivalent degree. Nor does the Petitioner submit copies of the 
Beneficiary's claimed degree, coursework, or certifications. Therefore, we will only consider 
whether the Beneficiary's prior work experience and/or work-related training equates to at least a 
U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
When USCIS determines a beneficiary's qualifications pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), 
"three years of specialized training and/or work experience must be demonstrated for each year of 
college-level training the alien lacks." Again, as the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary 
has any college-level education in a field related to the specific specialty, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has at least 12 years of specialized training and/or work experience 
in order to be found to have the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in the specific specialty 
pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5).4 
As evidence of the Beneficiary's prior work experience, the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's 
resume, two letters from the Petitioner's executives, and a letter from the owners of 
However, these documents - individually and collectively - are insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has at least 12 years of specialized training and/or work experience 
in the hazardous waste and recycling industry, such that we could determine that he has the 
equivalent to a bachelor's degree in that field or in the related fields of health and safety or 
engmeenng. 
The evidentiary weight of the Beneficiary's resume, alone, is insignificant. The resume represents a 
claim by the Beneficiary, rather than evidence to support that claim. Critically, the Petitioner has not 
submitted letters from the Beneficiary's previous employers or other objective evidence to 
4 While the Petitioner states that it requires a bachelor's degree in health and safety or engineering, or seven years of 
related work.experience, the Petitioner's self-imposed requirement does not and cannot replace the regulatory framework 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), which requires three years of' specialized training and/or work experience for every 
year of U.S. college education lacking. A U.S. bachelor's degree is generally found to require four years of education. 
See Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg' I Comm'r 1977). Thus, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
has at least 12 years of relevant specialized training and/or work experience. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of ECSR-T-, LLC 
corroborate the claims made in the Beneficiary's resume. "[G]oing on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings." Matter ofSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter a/Treasure 
Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Even if taken at face value, the Beneficiary's resume provides insufficient information about the 
Beneficiary's work experience. According to his resume, the Beneficiary has been working for the 
Petitioner for the past five years. Prior to that, he worked for as a 
"production operations manager" from September 2003 to August 2009 (approximately six years), 
as a "production supervisor" in 2002, and in various postttons 
from 1999-2002. But his resume does not identify whether the prior employers were in the 
hazardous waste and recycling industry, or another closely related industry. His resume also does 
not specify the dates (month and year) of the Beneficiary's employment at and 
where he was variously employed as a warehouse manager, hazardous 
analysis critical control point (HACCP) coordinator, afternoon building supervisor, and inventory 
control coordinator. 
Moreover, the Beneficiary's resume does not sufficiently describe his job duties, the bodies of 
knowledge required to perform them, as well as the qualifications of the Beneficiary's peers, 
supervisors, or subordinates in those companies. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). For example, 
according to his resume, the Beneficiary's job duties at included working with "the Health 
and Safety Committee," "the Ministry of Labor to become compliant as per the OHSA," and "the 
Ministry ofEnvironment to become compliant with its certificates of Air, Waste, and Waste water." 
His resume - and the remaining evidence of record - is silent as to what specific job duties he 
performed, the bodies of knowledge applied in the performance of these duties, and the 
qualifications of the persons with whom he worked. We therefore cannot determine whether the 
Beneficiary's work experience and/or training at "included the theoretical and practical 
application of specialized knowledge required by the specialty occupation," and "was gained while 
working with peers, super.visors, or subordinates who have a degree or it~ equivalent in the specialty 
occupation." !d. 
The BenefiCiary's resume indicates that his work at spanned three years and encompassed 
several positions. But as mentioned above, the Petitioner did not specify exactly when (month and 
year) the Beneficiary held each position. The absence of this information is important, as it is not 
apparent how the Beneficiary's positions as an inventory control coordinator or afternoon building 
supervisor, or his associated job duties of "[ensuring] finished goods and primary packaging were 
accessible and maintained" and "[scheduling] start times and breaks for staff," f~)f example, relate to 
the specific areas of the proffered position. Further, his resume - and the remaining evidence of 
record - is again silent as to what bodies of knowledge the Beneficiary applied in the performance of 
his duties, and the educational qualifications of his peers, supervisors, or subordinates. We therefore 
cannot determine whether, and if so, how much of, the Beneficiary's work experience and/or 
training at can be counted towards the minimum requirement of 12 years of relevant 
specialized training and/or work experience pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of ECSR- T-, LLC 
The letters from the Petitioner's representatives provide limited insight into the Beneficiary's prior 
work experience. For instance, the letter from the Petitioner's former president highlights the 
Beneficiary's work at as a HACCP coordinator and warehouse supervisor, in which roles he 
was "responsible for maintaining a safe manufacturing environment, in compliance with all 
regulation and standards." However, the Petitioner's letter does not further inform us about the 
specific dates of his employment in these positions, the bodies of knowledge the Beneficiary applied 
in the performance of his relevant duties, and the educational qualifications of his peers, supervisors, 
or subordinates. The same letter also highlights the Beneficiary's work at and even attests 
that "he worked closely with many people in the recycling industry." But again, the letter does not 
identify what bodies of knowledge the Beneficiary applied in the performance of his job duties at 
and the educational qualifications of his peers, supervisors, or subordinates in the recycling 
industry, such that we can consider all of his prior work experiences at these companies under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
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. 5 
Furthermore, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary has achieved recognition of expertise 
in the specialty occupation as a result of such training and experience. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) and (D)(l). 
In this vein, the Petitioner provided the letters from its representatives as well as from the owners of 
These letters attest to the Beneficiary's contributions to the 
petitioning company and his overall knowledge of the electronics recycling industry. The 
fundamental deficiency with these letters, ·however, is that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
they were written by "experts" or "recognized authorities" in the field. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. · § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining a "recognized authority" as 
"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"). 
While the Petitioner provided copies of the writers' diplomas and resumes, this evidence, without 
more, is insufficient. We note that the Petitioner submitted numerous articles about the electronics 
recycling industry and the various organizations · and governmental bodies involved, but none of the 
articles specifically mentions these writers or their respective companies as "recognized authorities " 
with "expertise" in the field. 
Overall, there is insufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has 
recognition of expertise . in the field, membership in a recognized association in the specialty 
5 Because the Petitioner has not made this threshold showing, we will not further analyze whether the Beneficiary also 
meets the Petitioner's additional requirements of seven to nine years of knowledge and/or experience in the principles 
and practices of organizational effectiveness and operations management , business and management , finance and 
accounting, human resources, and project management. 
Matter of ECSR-T-, LLC 
occupation, or published material by or about the Beneficiary. Absent corroborating evidence as 
outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past work 
experience and/or specialized training included the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge in a field related to the proffered position or that the Beneficiary has 
recognition of expertise in the field. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's statements that the "[t]he Electronics Recycling Industry is 
an up and coming area of interest, growth, and employment in the United States," and "has officially 
been around for less than 10 years." The Petitioner further asserts that due to its "niche" and 
relatively new industry, the Petitioner has not been able to obtain an evaluation from an official of an 
accredited college or university pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(J). Even if true, however, 
the Petitioner's inability to obtain an evaluation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) still does not 
overcome the Petitioner's burden of proof in these proceedings. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of a 
specialty occupation. For this reason, the petition will be denied. 6 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of ECSR-T-, LLC, ID# 96338 (AAO Oct. 6, 2016) 
6 As the identified ground of ineligibility is dispositive of the appeal, we will not address any additional deficiencies we 
hav,e identified on appeal. 
8