dismissed H-1B Case: Religion

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16919203 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 27, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "parochial vicar" under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations .1 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 California Service Center Director denied the petition , concluding that the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in the specialty occupation . On appeal , the 
Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred by denying the petition. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 2 The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in 
this matter de nova. 3 Upon de nova review, we will dismis s 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 (I )(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H )(i)(b). 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementing section 2 l 4(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(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: 
(]) 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 
2 
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 .... 
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; 4 
(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; 
4 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 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation m a 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 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 proceeding 
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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us is whether the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary is eligible to perform 
services in a specialty occupation as set out in the H-1 B statutory and regulatory requirements. The 
Petitioner states that the "position requires Ordination as a Roman Catholic Priest, which requires the 
minimum of a four-year Divinity, Theology or related degree or its equivalent." 
The initial record included an evaluation prepared by International Education Evaluators, Inc. which 
evaluated the Beneficiary's six years of study at foreign unaccredited religious institutions as well as 
the Beneficiary's foreign degree. The evaluator determined the U.S. equivalency for the Beneficiary's 
academic study as six years of study at U.S. unaccredited religious institutions and a master's of 
science degree in clinical psychology. 
In response to the Director's notice of intent to deny, the Petitioner submitted a second evaluation of 
the Beneficiary's foreign degree. The evaluation, prepared by Morningside Evaluations and 
Consulting, concluded that the U.S. equivalent for the foreign degree is a master of science degree in 
psychology. The Petitioner also submitted an evaluation of the Beneficiary's academics and work 
experience authored byl I Professor in Theology and Religious Studies 
Department atl !University. I lopined, based on the Morningside evaluation 
and the Beneficiary's 23 years of work experience and training in theology, that the Beneficiary had 
attained the equivalent of at least a bachelor of arts in theology from an accredited institution of higher 
education in the United States. Accompanying the opinion is the professor's resume. On appeal, the 
Petitioner re-submits the professor's evaluation letter and adds an explanatory letter from~I ---~ 
c=]and a letter from the Vice Dean ofFacultyj I University. 
A. Beneficiary's Eligibility 
Upon review of the record in its entirety, we note the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's 
claims and its failure to meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l)-( 4). 
Upon consideration of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on 
appeal, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, 
Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citingMatterofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994)); 
see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts 
and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly 
4 
resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" 
provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
Regarding the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's prior R-1 approvals qualifies the Beneficiary 
for H-1 B classification, we respectfully disagree. The H-1 B classification has specific requirements 
to establish a beneficiary's eligibility to perform the services of a specialty occupation as set out in 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l)-(4). The Petitioner has provided no evidence, law, or policy that a 
Petitioner may substitute one classification's requirements for another. Also, although the Beneficiary 
may have completed courses from unaccredited institutions in Mexico that qualified him to be 
ordained in Mexico, 5 the Petitioner has not provided evidence that the foreign coursework, which 
apparently did not result in a degree, is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's or higher degree in a specific 
field from an accredited institution in the United States. 
We also determine that the foreign degree issued by.__ _____________ __.does not 
establish that the Beneficiary attained the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in theology or 
divinity. The record includes one document, a photocopied diploma issued to the Beneficiary, which 
indicates the diploma is based on the certificates of completed studies and by virtue of the result of the 
final examination passed on April 1, 2014. The record does not include transcripts of the coursework, 
certificates, or other persuasive evidence from the foreign university regarding the Beneficiary's 
academics. 6 Upon review of the two evaluations of the Beneficiary's foreign degree, the Morningside 
evaluation refers to the Beneficiary's coursework taken at this foreign university and the International 
Education Evaluators evaluation refers to "documentation provided," but the record does not include 
a transcript or farther information for the Beneficiary's asserted two years of study at this university, 
either as attachments to the evaluations or as independent exhibits to the Petitioner's submissions. It 
is unclear whether the two evaluation services reviewed transcripts, certificates, or other evidence 
demonstrating the coursework completed by the Beneficiary atl I 
or whether they relied on the diploma copy alone. Thus, we question the thoroughness of the academic 
evaluations and the basis for their conclusion that the diploma demonstrates that the Beneficiary has 
attained the equivalent of a master's degree in clinical psychology or a master's degree in psychology. 
Notably, neither evaluation includes probative evidence thatl I 
requires the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty in order to enter into that 
university's master's program. 
Even if the evaluations are based on additional probative documentation, which we have not been 
provided the opportunity to review, the Petitioner has not established how a psychology degree 
5 We have considered the Petitioner's assertion that "Catholic faith ordination requires that a priest have a minimum of a 
four-year Divinity, Theology or related degree or its equivalent" and as the Beneficiary has been ordained he must have 
such a degree. However, to reiterate the Petitioner does not provide evidence that the Beneficiary's six years of study at 
unaccredited religious institutions in Mexico is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in theology or divinity issued 
by an accredited educational institution in the United States. Moreover, the record does not include evidence of the 
objective standards and methodologies the Catholic faith used in its decision to ordain the Beneficiary. 
6 On appeal, the Petitioner refers to the master's program at the foreign university and claims that the program included 
specific theological coursework. The Petitioner also refers to thel I Diploma 
Supplement and transcript and asserts that this information shows that a degree or equivalent certificate gained abroad is 
required by the university for admission. However, we have thoroughly searched the record for some evidence of these 
documents and cannot find them. We also note that the tables of contents within the record do not list these documents as 
included in the infmmation the Petitioner submitted. 
5 
includes the same or similar precise course of study as that required in a theology or divinity bachelor's 
degree. We note the Petitioner's reference to the Department of Labor's Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) and the assertion that 6 of21 of a clergy's core duties listed in the O*NET overlap 
with a variety of mental health occupations. As such, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's 
foreign degree, along with his theological education at unaccredited institutions, 7 is directly related to 
the position offered. However, there are many occupations that may include similar core duties. Here, 
the Petitioner has not established that a few psychology courses, while perhaps beneficial in 
performing certain duties of the position, are required courses to attain a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in a theology or divinity field. The record does not include persuasive evidence that the Beneficiary's 
credentials are equivalent to the U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree in theology or divinity, the degree 
required by the position. 
The regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)( 1) indicates that a petitioner may establish that 
a beneficiary's credentials equate to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree by providing 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. We reviewed the explanatory letters submitted on 
appeal from] I and the Vice Dean of Faculty to determine whether these documents assist 
in establishing thatl I has authority to grant college-level credit and tha~ I 
University has a program for granting such credit. I I explains that in reality only registrars 
have the ability to grant college credit but that they do so only with the approval of the department 
committee, the individuals who have the expertise in particular fields of study. We understand that 
the registrars au I University would consult I l or other individuals who have 
expertise in a particular subject matter. to grant college credit. In this matter, however, the record does 
not include evidence tha~ !University has a program to grant college-level credit based on 
an individual's training or work experience. 8 
The letter from the Vice Dean of Faculty,.__ ____________ ~University, certifies 
.__ ____ ___,~ s employment and indicates that her responsibilities have included evaluating the 
qualifications of graduate student applicants who have received their post-secondary education outside 
the United States. He notes that the materials! !evaluates include secondary transcripts, 
graduate record examination results, and documentation ofrelevant research and work experience. He 
7 As the Beneficiary studied theology at unaccredited institutions in Mexico, there is no method to evaluate the courses, 
the intensity of the work, the method of evaluating the students' progress, and ultimately the equivalency of that study to 
an accredited institution in Mexico or to accredited institutions in the United States. Accordingly, there is no basis to 
conclude that the Beneficiary's study at the unaccredited institutions is equivalent to study leading to a bachelor's or higher 
degree from an accredited institution in the United States. 
x We note that.__ ___ __. also adds thjt "unjversjty Jrograms do not have a set formula to relate work experience to 
specific coursework." Thus, it appears tha '-----~ is acknowledging thatl !University's review of work 
experience is subjective and not reliant on specific standards or methodologies. A subjective review and conclusion, 
without explanation or analysis of how training or work experience provides the specialized knowledge base equivalent to 
coursework for a particular degree, is insufficient to establish that more likely than not a beneficiary's work experience is 
equivalent to a specific degree. Ifl I is claiming that other universities also lack such programs, we note the 
record does not include a foundation for the expansion of the claim to the programs at other universities. Although 
I I University may not have a program to grant college-level credit based on an individual's work or life 
experience; there is no evidence tha~ I has knowledge or expertise to comment on the practices of other U.S. 
universities regarding college credit for work or life experience. 
6 
submits thatl lhas experience in evaluating the academic and work experience of foreign 
nationals, and to calibrate and assess their training relative to higher education standards at a 
University such asl t Neither! ts nor the Vice Dean's letter, however, 
includes evidence thatl !University has a program to grant credit to students for work 
related experience and training. As this is an essential element when evaluating a beneficiary's 
training or work experience under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(J), the lack of such a 
program atl !university precludes consideration ofl ~ opinion for this 
purpose. 
Moreover , as the Director concluded, the Petitioner does not expound upon or explain the 
Beneficiary's work experience . While the record contains some information regarding the 
Beneficiary's basic work history, it does not establish that this work experience included the 
theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the proffered position at a 
bachelor's level; 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) . Thus, there is not adequate evidence or a basis for the 
Service to evaluate the Beneficiary's training, work experience, and academics. 
The Petitioner argues that we should defer to its determination that the Beneficiary qualifies to perform 
the proffered position. However, in the H-1 B nonimmigrant context, the regulations provide the 
specific methodology required to establish a Beneficiary's eligibility . In the H-lB context, as the 
Director explained, the Petitioner must provide evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary has 
attained a bachelor's-level degree in the specific specialty required for the position. The Petitioner 
has not provided this evidence. The record here lacks probative and persuasive evidence supporting 
the Petitioner's claim, that more likely than not, the Beneficiary possesses a U.S. bachelor 's degree or 
higher in the specific field required of the position, or its equivalent. Again, despite the Beneficiary's 
previously approved R-1 petitions, we do not have any authority to confer an immigration benefit 
when the Petitioner does not meet its burden of proof in a separately filed petition, even more so when 
the petition is for a different benefit. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The record here 
does not establish eligibility for this nonimmigrant visa benefit. 
B. Change of Status and Extension of Stay 
Since the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the H-lB visa classification , any request for a 
change of status based on an approval of the H-lB petition is moot. Additionally, we point out there 
is no appeal from the Director's denial of the request for the Beneficiary's extension of stay. The 
regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 15)(i) specifically states that, "[ e ]ven though the requests to extend 
the petition and the alien's stay are combined on the petition, the director shall make a separate 
determination on each." Thus, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(14) deals only with H-lB petition extensions and 
8 C.F .R. § 214.1 ( c) relates solely to extension of stay requests. 9 Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.1 ( c )( 5), 
there is no appeal from the Director's denial of an application for extension of stay filed on Form 1-129 
or Fonn 1-539. Thus, any denial of an extension of stay request is not within our jurisdiction. The 
Petitioner points to no authority for this office to overturn the Director's denial of the Beneficiary's 
9 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 248.3(a) addresses change of status requests to H-lB classification. 
7 
extension of stay or to address the Director's conclusions regarding the Beneficiary's admissibility 
into the United States. 
III. 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. 
8