dismissed H-1B Case: Software Consulting

---* 
iw*x&ta~ 
ptevmt clearly unwarranted 
invasion of mnal piva~y 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: EAC 04 253 5191 1 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. Wiernann, Direct 
Y 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 253 51911 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director 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 specializes in software consulting. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
programmer-analyst and to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 
lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition because the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of a specialty occupation. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter and additional evidence. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1184(i)(2), states that an alien applying for classification as an H-1B 
nonimmigrant worker must possess full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is 
required to practice in the occupation, and completion of the degree in the specialty that the occupation 
requires. If the alien does not possess the required degree, the petitioner must demonstrate that the alien has 
experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and recognition of expertise in the 
specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), to qualify to perform services in a specialty occupation, an alien 
must meet one of the following criteria: 
(I) 
 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, andlor 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. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains, in part: (1) Form 1-129 with supporting documentation, 
including the petitioner's company support letter, a September 2004 foreign academic credentials equivalency 
evaluation from International Credentials Evaluation and Translation Services (ICETS), and the beneficiary's 
resume and university transcript; (2) the director's denial letter; and (3) Form I-290B with accompanying 
brief and additional documentation, including a November 2004 credentials evaluation from ICETS. The 
AAO reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing its decision. 
The director denied the petition based on the petitioner's failure to demonstrate that the beneficiary was 
qualified to perform the duties of the proposed position. The director found that the beneficiary's foreign 
degree in civil engineering was not in a field related to the proposed computer programmer-analyst position. 
The director further found that the beneficiary's employment history was more closely related to the proposed 
EAC 04 253 51911 
Page 3 
position but that the beneficiary's four years of work experience was only equivalent to one year towards a 
U.S. bachelor's degree in a field related to the proposed position. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's bachelor's degree, together with his work experience in 
computers, is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer science. 
Upon a thorough review of the record, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary is qualified to 
perform an occupation that requires a bachelor's degree in a computer-related field. 
The beneficiary does not hold a bachelor's degree from an accredited U.S. college or university in any field of 
study. The beneficiary has been determined to hold the equivalent to a United States bachelor's degree in 
civil engineering. The Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) a resource on which CIS routinely 
relies, indicates that many computer systems analysts hold advanced degrees in technical fields or a master's 
degree in business administration (MBA) with a concentration in information systems. For systems analyst, 
programmer analyst, or even database administrator positions, many employers seek applicants who have a 
bachelor's degree in computer science, information science, or management information systems (MIS). The 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's degree is in a field related to the specialty. Thus, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. ij 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), equating the beneficiary's credentials to a United States bachelor's 
or higher degree shall be determined by one or more of the following: 
(I) 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); 
(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, 
andlor 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a credentials evaluation from ICETS. The ICETS evaluation states that the 
beneficiary's degree in civil engineering fiom the University of Delhi is equivalent to bachelor's degree in 
engineering from an accredited institution of higher education in the United States. Further, the ICETS 
EAC 04 253 51911 
Page 4 
evaluation states that the beneficiary's four years and four months work experience in the field of computer 
science along with his degree in engineering are the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in computer science 
from an accredited institution of higher education in the United States. 
This evidence is not persuasive. The AAO accepts the portion of the evaluation submitted on appeal that 
concludes that the beneficiary's degree from the University of Delhi is the equivalent of an engineering 
degree from an accredited university in the United States. An engineering degree, however, is not a degree 
directly related to the field of computer programming and systems analysis. 
The beneficiary's degree in civil engineering from the University of Delhi does not establish equivalence to a 
United States bachelor's degree in computer science, software engineering, information technology, or a 
related field. The beneficiary's coursework such as engineering statistics, determinate structural analysis, and 
fluid mechanics is not associated with a computer science discipline or a specialized area of study directly 
related to the proposed position. The beneficiary's transcripts indicate that he took one course in computer 
programming. The beneficiary's coursework is associated with engineering studies. 
The AAO does not accept the portion of the evaluation submitted on appeal that evaluates the combination of 
the beneficiary's work experience, specialized training and education. The evaluator lists the various projects 
the beneficiary designed and developed and concludes that this work experience, combined with the 
beneficiary's bachelor's degree, is the equivalent of a bachelor of science degree in engineering and computer 
science. An evaluator may evaluate foreign credentials only. 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3). There is no 
independent evidence in the record to establish that the ICETS evaluator has the authority to grant college- 
level credit, at an accredited institution, based on an applicant's foreign educational credentials, training, 
and/or employment experience. The certificates the beneficiary obtained in Microsoft and Java are not equal 
to a bachelor's degree in computer science. 
Thus CIS must determine the beneficiary's qualifications pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). When 
CIS determines an alien's qualifications pursuant to 8 C.F.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. 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 occupation1; 
(ii) 
 Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or society in the specialty 
occupation; 
I 
 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. 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. 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
EAC 04 253 51911 
Page 5 
(iii) 
 Published material by or about the alien in professional publications, trade journals, books, or 
major newspapers; 
(iv) 
 Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a foreign country; or 
(v) 
 Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be significant contributions to 
the field of the specialty occupation. 
The AAO now turns to the beneficiary's work experience, and whether it included the theoretical and 
practical application of specialized knowledge required by the specialty. The only evidence relating to the 
beneficiary's work experience consists of an employment verification letter from the beneficiary's current 
employer in India, HCL Technologies. This letter indicates that the beneficiary is being promoted to the 
position of senior software engineer, but does not provide any list or description of the beneficiary's duties, 
nor did the letter indicate that the beneficiary's experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, 
or subordinates who have bachelor's degrees in computer science or the equivalent. 
The record's minimal documentation of the beneficiary's employment history fails to offer the type of 
evidence necessary to satisfy the fifth criterion, which requires the petitioner to prove that the beneficiary's 
work experience has included the theoretical and practical application of the specialized knowledge required 
by management analysts, and that this experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or 
subordinates who have bachelor's degrees in computer science or the equivalent. The record also lacks the 
documentation necessary for the AAO to determine whether the beneficiary's expertise in computer science 
has been formally recognized by recognized authorities, professional associations, or the media. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has acquired the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in 
computer science through a combination of education, specialized training, and/or work experience, as 
required to satisfy the requirements of the fifth criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D). 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary is qualified to perform the services of a specialty 
occupation. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
tj 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.