dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

identifying dm &- @ 
pmnt clearly U~W~RM~ 
invasion of pmnd 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: EAC 04 213 50686 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 2 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. !j 1 10 1 (a)(lS)(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 off~ce. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC04213 50686 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the service center denied the nonimrnigrant 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 sofiware development and consulting firm. In order to employ the beneficiary as a systems 
analyst, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary 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 5)(H)(i)(b). 
The director denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary was 
qualified to perform services in the specialty occupation position of systems analyst. Upon review of the 
entire record, including all the documentation and other information submitted in the record from the filing of 
the Form 1-129 through the appeal, the AAO finds that the director was correct. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed, and the petition will be denied. 
As reflected in the following paragraph fi-om his decision, the director determined that the evidence of record 
does not establish that the beneficiary has attained the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in the pertinent 
specialty: 
The record indicates that the beneficiary's education appears to be entirely in the field(s) of 
commerce and business, with virtually no more formal training in computer science than 
would enable him to operate off-the-shelf software. This does not meet a professional level 
of competence. The beneficiary's actual employment history is much more related to the 
proffered position. He currently has six years' experience; at the equivalence of three years' 
experience to one year's college education, the beneficiary therefore has attained 
approximately two years toward the equivalent of a bachelor's [degree] in a directly-related 
field. 
On appeal, counsel submits: a brief; an evaluation of the beneficiary's educational credentials and work 
experience; and copies of two diplomas and related academic transcripts from educational institutions in 
India. Counsel contends that, as expanded by the evaluation submitted on appeal, the evidence of record 
establishes that the beneficiary possesses a combination of education and work experience that is equivalent 
to "a U.S. Bachelor's Degree in Computer Information Systems and a Master of Business Administration." 
As discussed below, application of the pertinent statutory and regulatory standards do not support counsel's 
position. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(i)(2), states that an alien 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 
EAC 04 213 50686 
Page 3 
(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. 
The degree referenced by section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act means one in a specific specialty that is characterized 
by a body of highly specialized knowledge that must be theoretically and practically applied in performing the 
duties of the proffered position. 
In implementing 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1184(i)(2), the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) 
states that an alien must meet one of the following criteria in order to qualify to perform services in a 
specialty occupation: 
(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 filly 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), equating the beneficiary's credentials to a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree under 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) would require one or more of the 
following: 
(I) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for training 
andor experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a 
program for granting such credit based on an individual's training andlor 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 
EAC 04 213 50686 
Page 4 
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. . . 
According to its express terms, to satisfy the beneficiary qualification criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
4 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), a petitioner must demonstrate three years of specialized training and/or work 
experience for each year of college-level training the alien lacks. This provision imposes the following 
evaluation standards: 
[I]t must be clearly demonstrated [I] that the alien's training and/or work experience included 
the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the specialty 
occupation; [2] 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 [3] 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 occupation2; 
(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 
The petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, CIS accepts a credentials evaluation 
service's evaluation of education only, not 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. 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. 8 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
EAC 04 213 50686 
Page 5 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be significant 
contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
In this proceeding, to establish that the beneficiary is qualified to perform services in the pertinent specialty 
occupation of systems analyst, the petitioner must establish, by application of the above standards to the 
evidence of record, that the beneficiary has attained at least a U.S. bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in 
computer science or a related specialty. As discussed below, the petitioner has not succeeded. 
The petitioner doe$ not possess a U.S. degree; and qualification by licensure is not an issue in this proceeding. 
Therefore, the issue before the AAO is whether the evidence of record establishes that the beneficiary satisfies 
either 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2) (by a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to at least a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree in computer science or a related specialty), or 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) (by (1) 
education, specialized training, andlor progressively responsible experience that is equivalent to at least 
completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and (2) recognition 
of expertise in systems analysis through progressively responsible experiences directly related to the 
specialty). 
The record of proceeding contains copies of the following evidence of the beneficiary's formal education in 
foreign colleges or universities: a three-year Bachelor of Commerce Diploma from Osmania University, 
India; an academic transcript reflecting a total of 14 courses over three years that led to the Osmania 
University degree; a Master of Business Administration diploma from Andhra University, India; an academic 
transcript for four semesters at Anhara University; and statements of marks on the beneficiary's examinations 
at Anhara Univesrity. 
The record also contains copies of certificates attesting to the beneficiary's completion of computer-related 
programs at three institutions that the record does not establish as college-level educational institutions: 
Brainbench, Soft Infosys, and Software Solution Integrated Limited (SSIL). 
Documentation of the beneficiary's work experience consists of two NCS Difference Quality Awards; a job 
offer letter and memorandum of terms of employment for the beneficiary to serve as a Senior Systems 
and a letter from each of the following former employers: EPS 
the beneficiary was employed as a Senior Analyst Programmer); 
was employed as a Software Engineer); and SSI Limited 
(attesting that the beneficiary was employed as a Software Engineer). 
The record of proceeding contains two evaluations of the beneficiary's foreign education and work 
experience. The first, submitted prior to the director's decision, was rendered by a professor working as a 
consultant for an entity identified in the evaluation as ICETS; the second, submitted with the appeal, was 
rendered by an evaluator employed by Education Evaluation and Immigration Service (EEIS). It is noted that 
the two evaluations are materially different in their findings and ultimate conclusions. 
EAC 04 21 3 50686 
Page 6 
The AAO accords no weight to either evaluation's conclusions as to the educational equivalency of the 
beneficiary's work experience or Brainbench, Soft Infosys, and SSIL training courses, as the record 
establishes neither evaluator as "an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for training andlor 
experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a program for granting such credit 
based on an individual's training andlor work experience" as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2). 
Consequently, the AAO considered the EEIS and ICETS evaluations only to the extent that they commented 
upon the U.S. degree equivalency of the beneficiary's coursework at Osmania University and Anhara 
University. 
Without explanation or independent evidence to validate its accuracy, the EEIS evaluation submitted on 
appeal contradicts the earlier evaluation rendered by the consultant for ICETS. The earlier evaluation 
determined that the courses completed at Osmania University and at Anhara University are equivalent, 
respectively, to three years of coursework towards an accredited U.S. bachelor's degree in business 
administration (BBA), and to completion of coursework required for an accredited U.S. BBA. In contrast, 
the EEIS evaluation - which counsel would have the AAO adopt - opined that the Osmania University 
coursework is equivalent to an accredited U.S. BBA with a concentration in accounting, and that the Anhara 
University coursework is equivalent to a Master of Business Administration Degree. 
The AAO discounts the evaluations to the extent that they contradict each other. Consequently, the AAO 
finds that they establish that the beneficiary's foreign coursework associated with his two degrees is the 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in business administration. However, as the beneficiary's academic 
transcripts for his foreign degrees do not reveal coursework in computer science or a related discipline, the 
AAO finds that the beneficiary has not attained the requisite U.S. degree equivalency in the specialty required 
for systems analysts. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation 
of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, 
and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 -92 (BIA 1988). CIS uses 
an evaluation by a credentials evaluation organization of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion 
only. Where an evaluation is not in accord with previous equivalencies or is in any way questionable, it may 
be discounted or given less weight. Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 8 1 7 (Comm. 198 8). 
The training certificates and the content of the documents submitted from former employers do not provide 
sufficient information for the AAO to make a determination under 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) that, by 
application of this provision's three-for-one rule, the beneficiary has attained sufficient years of specialized 
training and work experience to equate to the college coursework in computer science or a related discipline 
that he is missing. The training certificates do not establish that the beneficiary's computer training equates to 
U.S. college-level credits. The training certificates and the documents fi-om the beneficiary's former 
employers do not merit CIS recognition as equivalent to accredited U.S. college or university credits under 8 
C.F.R. $ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), as they do not clearly demonstrate (1) that the alien's training andlor work 
experience included the theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the 
specialty occupation; (2) 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 (3) that the alien has 
EAC 04 21 3 50686 
Page 7 
recognition of expertise in the specialty evidenced by at least one type of documentation specified in this 
provision. 
The record provides no basis for disturbing the director's decision. The petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation according to the standards of 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) and @). 
As always, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER. The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.