dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 2 7 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
lJ.S. Department of H.omeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigra tion Servic e 
Admini strative Appeals Offi ce 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N. W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-20 90 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOI(a)(IS)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S .C. § IIOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
··~·· . ~·--~, ... ·~~~· -----------' 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov /i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location , and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center , denied the petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. BACKGROUND 
On the Form I-129 visa petition, the petitioner describes itself as a software development and 
consulting firm established in In order to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a 
"Programmer Analyst" position, at an annual salary of $58,000, the petitioner seeks to classify him 
as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101 (a)( 15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The Director denied the petition , concluding that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that 
the beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the particular type of specialty occupation 
claimed in the petition. 
The record of proceeding before us contains the following: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting 
documentation; (2) the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response 
to the RFE; ( 4) the Director's letter denying the petition; and (5) the Form I-290B, brief, and 
supporting documentation. 
We find that upon review of the entire record of proceeding, the evidence of record does not overcome 
the Director's ground for denying this petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
As a preliminary matter , we note that a beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are 
relevant only when the job is found to qualify as a specialty occupation. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) is required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine 
first, whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and second, whether an 
alien beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. 
Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assoc., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a 
beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner 
intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). In this case, the Director did not 
address whether the proffered position is a specialty occupation . Beyond the decision of the 
Director, we find that the record of proceeding does not establish that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
1 In the Labor Condition Application (LCA) filed in support of the petition, the petitioner indicated that the 
proffered position corresponds to "Computer Systems Analysts" occupational classification , SOC 
(O*NET/OES) Code 15-1121 at a Level I (entry level) wage. We recognize the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. In discussing the occupational category 
"Computer Systems Analysts," the Handbook states "although many computer systems analysts have 
technical degrees , such a degree is not always a requirement. Many analysts have liberal arts degrees and 
have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." Therefore, we find that the Handbook does not 
support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty , or its equivalent, is normally the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
However, for the limited purpose of adjudicating the beneficiary qualification issue upon which the 
Director denied the petition, we will assume that the proffered position is one that requires a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in computer information systems or its equivalent.2 As we will discuss at length, 
the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary has attained a bachelor's degree in 
computer information systems or its equivalent. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed, and the 
petition will be denied. 
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 is as follows. 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such 
degree, and 
(ii) recogmtiOn of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
m1mmum requirement for entry into this occupation. It is noted that the pet1t10ner referred to the 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) to assert that this occupational category requires a four-year 
bachelor's degree; however, O*NET does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its 
equivalent is required. The petitioner did not provide other authoritative sources to establish that the 
minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We further note that the petitioner indicated in its support letter dated March 15, 2014 that the position 
requires "a BS degree or its equivalent in the management information systems, computer science, computer 
applications, engineering or related field." USCIS interprets the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position . 
However, in this case, the petitioner has not established how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of highly specialized knowledge 1s 
essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties . 
2 The petitioner submitted credential evaluations that indicate that the beneficiary's academic and work 
experience is equivalent to a bachelor's degree in computer information systems. We further note that the 
Handbook indicates "a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science is common, although not 
always a requirement." Therefore, we will assume, for the limited purpose of adjudicating this case, that a 
bachelor's degree in computer information systems is required for the proffered position. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states 
that an alien must also 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 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.P.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-1 C 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 an alien for classification as an H -1 B nonimmigrant worker under the Act, the 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary possesses the requisite license or, if none is required , 
that he or she 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.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) require 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 
(b)(6)
rage::> 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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; 3 
( 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 
3 The petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credentials evaluation 
service's evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 
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: (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 
(b)(6)
rage o 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 
(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 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 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. 
Further, in accordance with the "preponderance of the evidence" standard as articulated in Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-376 (AAO 2010), we must "examine each piece of evidence for 
relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of 
the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." 
III. DISCUSSION 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the "[b]eneficiary holds a Bachelor of Technology in Civil 
Engineering from University (awarded 1998) and a Diploma in Civil Engineering 
(awarded 1994)." The petitioner further indicates that "[the beneficiary] has at least seven years of 
qualifying experience and training in the field of Computer Information Systems." 
We note that, absent (1) an actual U.S. bachelor's or higher degree from an accredited college or 
university, (2) a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to such a degree, or (3) a pertinent 
license, the only remaining avenue for the beneficiary to qualify for the proffered position is 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) , in which the petitioner must establish both (1) that the 
beneficiary's combined education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience 
are equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty 
occupation, and (2) that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty through 
progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty. Therefore, the issue on this 
appeal is whether the beneficiary's combined education and experience is equivalent to completion 
of a U.S. bachelor or higher degree in the specialty occupation. 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
A. Evidence 
Evaluations 
• An August 4, 2014 "Expert Opinion Evaluation of Academics and Work Experience" by Dr. 
. Ph.D .. an Associate Professor of Computer Applications and Information 
Systems at the 1 
• A January 15,2015 "Credential Evalu::~tion RP-nort" hv Dr. ~--- L, a Professor of 
Computer Science and Engineering at University. 
Both evaluators opine that the combination of (1) the beneficiary's degrees from India and (2) the 
beneficiary's work experience is equivalent to a U.S bachelor's degree in computer information 
systems. 
Academic s 
• A diploma in "Civil Engineering" for completing 3 year study awarded from State Board of 
Technical Education and Training (SBTET). 
~ "Provisional Certificate Cum Consolidated Marks." This document only includes 
marks for the second and third year of study. Also, the petitioner did not submit an 
academic transcript showing the coursework that the beneficiary completed. 
• A certificate issued by the engineering faculty at University attesting that the 
beneficiary "has been duly admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Technology (Civil)." 
~ A two-page academic transcript which reflects that the period of study was from 
1995 to 1998, and the beneficiary was awarded a bachelor of technology "(Civil 
Engineering)" in April, 1998. 
~ The transcript reports completion of the following courses (quoted verbatim from the 
transcript): 
Year I: Mathematics - I; Mathematics - II; Engineering Mechanics; Engineering 
Geology; Solid Mechanics; Fluid Mechanics ; Structural Analysis I; Elements 
of Ele. & Mech. Engg.; Engineering Geology Lab.; Str. of Materials & 
Concrete Lab.; Computer Programming Lab. 
Year II: Structural Analysis - II; Geo-Technical Engineering; Water Res. Engg. 
Drawing; Environmental Engg. -I; Hydraulics & Hydraulic Mach.; Str. Des. 
& Drawing - I (Con.); Str. Des. & Drawing- II (Steel); Est. Costing & Const. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Management; Transportation Engg. - I; H & H M Lab.; Geo-tech Engg. & 
Trans. Engg. Lab; Environmental Engg. Lab. 
Year III: Str. Des. & Drawing - III (Con); Str. Des. & Drawing - IV (Steel); Water 
Res. Engg. & Drawing - II; Transportation Engg. - II; Structural Analysis -
III; Elective I: Prestressed Concrete; Elective II: Adv . Topics m 
Environmental Engg. ; Computer Appl. In Civil Eng. Lab ; Project Work . 
Notably, the transcript records only two computer courses (namely, "Computer 
Programming Lab ." and 
"Computer Appl. In Civil Engg . [(sic)] Lab"). 
Work Experience 5 
• A letter from Software Services Ltd. states that "[the beneficiary] was in our 
employment from November 22, 2006 to May 31, 2007 as 'Software Engineer"' and that "he 
has left us on his own accord."' 
• A letter from L states "this is to certify that [the beneficiary] 
was working with t since July 03, 2007. He has resigned of his own accord 
and is being relieved from the services of the Company from the close of working hours of 
January 23, 2009." It further states "[a]t the time ofhis resignation, he was designated as Sr. 
Software Engineer." 
• A service certificate from ] Technology Ltd . names the 
beneficiary , and states that he joined the firm designated as a senior software engineer on 
May 11,2009 and left the firm by resigning on March 5, 2010. 
• The sworn statements from persons identifying themselves as the beneficiary's former 
coworkers and attesting that they have personal knowledge of the beneficiary's employment ; 
however, the accuracy of the statements' contents is not affirmed by the employers. 6 
5 The record also contains a variety of other documents related to the beneficiary's periods of work for former 
employers. The petitioner submitted an "Employment Agreement" between the beneficiary and the 
_ .- . 0 . /. From this document and the accompanying documents we 
only glean that the beneficiary had been employed by as a "Consultant." The record also contains 
certificates reflecting that the beneficiary had successfully completed several training courses in Information 
Technology areas. We will not discuss these documents as neither evaluation specifically addresses these 
documents. 
6 While the affiants state that the beneficiary "worked with" them, the amount of contact that they had with 
the beneficiary is not clear. Further, close similarity of the statements' format and phrasing suggest that their 
content was provided by a common source, which raises questions about their credibility. 
(b)(6)
' 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 9 
B. Analysis 
Again, under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) , the petitioner must establish both (1) that the 
beneficiary's combined education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience 
are equivalent to completion of a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation, 
and (2) that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 
In order to equate the beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree, the 
petitioner must meet one or more of the provisions at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D). Here, we will 
not discuss 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2) or (4), since they are not relevant to the issues on 
appeal. 
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. 
The provision at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) requires 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. 
The evidence in the record contains an evaluation from Dr. ' from the University o1 
However, the petitioner has not established that Dr. · is an official that meets the criterion at 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l); therefore we withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
Specifically, Dr. submitted a letter from the Dean of the University of School of 
Business. It states in pertinent part that Dr. l is "authorized and qualified to grant 'life 
experience' credits through the IDEAL degree-completion program offered through the School of 
_ " However, there is no evidence anywhere in the record of 
proceeding of the extent of the Business School Dean's participation in or personal knowledge of 
the IDEAL program, which the Dean's own letter acknowledges as one administered by an entity 
other than the Business School, namely, the School of _ We 
find that this is in itself sufficient reason for us to accord no significant weight to the letter from the 
Dean of the Business School, particularly as this Dean presents no substantive information or 
documentation to support his conclusory declaration that Dr. · is "authorized and qualified to 
grant 'life experience credits' through the IDEAL degree-completion program" at the University of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Further, we find that, even taken at face value, the letter from the Business School Dean does not 
establish that Dr. · s involvement in the University of IDEAL program qualifies 
him as "an official who has authority to grant college-level credit tor training and/or experience in 
the specialty" in a University of "program for granting such credit based on an 
individual's training and/or work experience." Specifically, the Dean of the Business School states 
that Dr. l is authorized to grant "life experience" credits, not "college-level credit" and not 
"college-level credit in the [pertinent] specialty" as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(l). 
We will not speculate as to the nature, qualifying grounds, or academic weight of what is meant by 
"life-experience" credits, and the record of proceeding throws little light on this aspect of the 
IDEAL program. It is the petitioner's burden to establish both what constitutes "life experience" as 
defined for credit-assessment in the IDEAL program, and also that "life experience" evaluated for 
credit in the IDEAL program is substantially the same as "training and/or work experience" which 
must be the basis of college-credit awarded by a person whom a petitioner holds out as qualifying as 
an 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) official. The petitioner has not met that burden. For this 
reason, we withdraw the Director's contrary finding, and find that the petitioner has not established 
that Dr. is an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or 
experience in the specialty at an accredited college of university which has a program in granting 
such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience. 
The record of proceeding also contains a Credential Report by Dr. L dated January 15, 2015; 
however, we find that the evidence in the record does qualify him as an official described at 8 
C.F.R. §214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) . The evaluation is accompanied by a letter from ] 1 who 
represents himself as the Dean of Natural Sciences. 7 While Dr. ~ . states that the university 
"grants credits based on an individual's education, training and/or work experience," and Dr. 
"has authority to confer college level credits to his students," it does not indicate that Dr. 
has the authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the 
specialty at the university. Moreover, the record does not have additional information regarding the 
program or Professor's · · 's knowledge and authority as the dean of another academic 
department, namely natural sciences, to affirm Dr. 's authority to grant such credits. 
We also note that both evaluators' conclusions are not sufficiently substantiated. For example, Dr. 
identifies the beneficiary's former employers and the periods of employment; however, he 
does not discuss any details of the beneficiary's work, other than to note the names of former 
employers, the periods of former employment , and that the beneficiary "has held such titles as 
Software Engineer and Senior Software Engineer." This evaluator then states, without citation to 
any study, research, or authoritative source that "[t]hese are standard titles in the Industry and are 
given only to persons able to conduct the software development process at a level commensurate 
with one of the computer-related bachelor degrees." We accord no significant weight to this 
7 We note that the letter from Dr. ~ is dated June 10, 2014, six months prior to the issuance of 
evaluation; therefore, it is not clear if the information contained in his letter is current. We further note that 
University's website describes Dr. ; status as "phased retirement." See 
www.plu.edu (last visited July 22, 2015). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
finding. While it appears that all of the previous employment referenced by Dr. was 
performed in India, Dr. does not establish that he has a sufficient knowledge of position­
title usage in India - or with the former employers - to reach his conclusion . Further, the focus of 
our concern is U.S degree-equivalency , and Dr. , does not substantiate that Indian 
computer-related degrees are by and large equivalent to U.S. degrees, although that assumption is 
implicit in his statement. 
Similarly, we note that Dr. relied upon the aforementioned sworn statements from the 
beneficiary's former co-workers for the beneficiary's work experience , as evident in his summary of 
the beneficiary's work experience. Specifically, he compressed the sworn-statements' bullet-point 
duty descriptions into a paragraph, without any supplemental comments about the substantive 
nature of such duties or how the specific performance requirement of those duties those relate to 
specific U.S college-level coursework needed for a U.S. bachelor's degree in computer information 
systems. For the reasons reflected in our earlier comments and findings about the evidentiary 
weight of the sworn statements, we find that Dr. has not provided an adequate factual 
foundation for evaluating the beneficiary's work history. Additionally , Dr. :assessment of the 
beneficiary's work experience is undermined by the fact that he misstates the information in the two 
sworn statements about the beneficiary's work for the period from June 2008 to December 2009 at 
. Dr. s language presents the beneficiary as having fully performed the six duties 
for which the sworn statements only state that the beneficiary was "involved in," without any 
specific description of the substantive extent such involvement. 
An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluatingfor eign educational credentials 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(J) requires an evaluation of education by a reliable 
credentials evaluation service which specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials . As 
discussed, the record contains an evaluation by Dr. t. We note that while Dr. 
indicates that he is a professor in computer science at , the evaluation is 
submitted on a Universal Evaluations and Consulting's letterhead and Dr. signed his name 
as an "evaluator." Further, Dr. ; 's evaluation is based on the beneficiary's academic 
credentials and work experience . Therefore , Dr. _ r -------·--·'s evaluation does not meet the criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(J). 
However, even if we were to consider Dr. s evaluation on the beneficiary's academic 
credentials only, we find that his conclusions are not sufficiently substantiated. For example, Dr. 
concluded that based on the beneficiary's SBTET diploma, the beneficiary "has satisfied 
requirements substantially similar to those required towards the completion of academic studies 
leading to [a] US equivalent high school plus one-year university level credit from a regionally 
accredited college in the United States [emphasis added]." However, Dr. : _ did not 
specifically address the beneficiary's SBTET coursework, and his narrative does not correlate any 
specific SBTET coursework to specific coursework requirements for a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
computer information systems or any other specific specialty. As noted the record of proceeding 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
does not contain an academic transcript from 
beneficiary has completed. 
to establish the course work that the 
) 
With regard to the certificate issued by University, Dr. opined that the 
beneficiary "has satisfied academic requirements substantially similar to those required towards the 
completion of academic studies leading to [a] Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from an 
accredited college or university in the United States." We note that his narrative does not equate the 
beneficiary's post-secondary education to any specific amount of U.S. coursework in computer 
information systems, which is the specialty Dr. ultimately finds a U.S. 
degree-equivalency. Parenthetically, we note again that the documentation shows no 
computer coursework and that the university documents only reflect two computer 
courses (namely, Computer Programmmg Lab and Computer Applications in Civil Engineering). 
Thus, neither set of documents provides a credible basis for finding in the beneficiary's foreign 
education a significant amount of U.S. college-level equivalency in computer information systems. 
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 . ... 
Aside from the material deficiencies discussed above, both evaluations misinterpret the so-called 
"three-for-one" rule. Dr. : stated that "3 years of experience/training is equal to 1 year of 
University-level credit in [the] USA"; Dr. also stated that USCIS has "established that three 
years of work experience and/training is equivalent to one year ofuniversity-level training." 
The only section ofthe H-lB beneficiary-qualification regulations that provides for application of a 
three-for-one ratio is the provision at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). However, that provision 
reserves its application exclusively for USC IS agency-determinations. 8 Further, that provision 
8 That the application is exclusively a measure for USCIS is clear in the language of the regulation . 
Additionally, the supplementary comments to the Final Rule that first introduced the ratio into agency 
regulations include the following statements: 
For the benefit of petitioners and applicants who may have difficulty in seeking and 
obtaining a determination of equivalency through authoritative sources, the Service adopted 
its own standard for substituting specialized training and/or experience for college-level 
training, and for assuring that the alien is recognized as a member of the profession. The 
three-for-one formula which will be used is based on a survey of relevant precedent 
decisions which reflect the number of years of experience held by aliens who did not have 
degrees , but were regarded by the Service as members of their profession . .. . 
55 Fed. Reg. 2606, 2016 (Jan. 26, 1990)(Final Rule). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
requires substantially more than simply equating any three years of work experience in a specific 
field to attainment of a year's worth of U.S. college credit in that field or specialty. In fact, it inserts 
a number of elements of proof into the experience and/or training equation that both evaluators have 
overlooked. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) - which, as we have seen, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) introduces as one ofthe avenues towards establishing 
a beneficiary's qualifications - reads as follows: 
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. 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 [(1)] 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 occupation; 
(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 m 
a 
foreign country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significant contributions to the field ofthe specialty occupation. 
[Emphasis added.] 
The record contains letters from the beneficiary's former employers as evidence of the beneficiary's 
work experience. However, the letters are limited to skeletal information, such as the beneficiary's 
periods of employment and the beneficiary's job title. They contain no substantive information 
about the specific work that the beneficiary performed, such as, for instance, the level of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 14 
responsibility that he exercised, the extent to which he was supervised, the latitude of independent 
judgment that the beneficiary may have been allowed to exercise, or the types and levels of any 
substantive knowledge that the beneficiary may have applied in the area of computer information 
systems. Moreover, the letters provide no statements as to the quality of the beneficiary's work, the 
level of his skills, or any aspects of the beneficiary's performance meriting recognition for showing 
a particular level of expertise in computer information systems. Further, the letters do not identify 
the minimum educational requirements that the firms set for the type of position that the beneficiary 
held. Also, while the letters indicate that the beneficiary resigned from each position they do not 
addJess whether the resignations may have been tendered in lieu of termination by the employer. 
For all ofthese reasons, the former employers' letters have little evidentiary value beyond indicating 
the employers for whom the beneficiary worked at various times and the titles under which he 
worked. 
Neither the two evaluations, the documents accompanying them, nor any other part of the record of 
proceeding provides sufficient evidence for us to reasonably conclude that the work-experience 
evidence satisfies the 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) requirements for application of the "three-to­
one ratio." Accordingly , we cannot conclude that the evidence of the beneficiary's work experience 
qualifies for recognition of any years of college-level credit by correct application of the H-1B 
beneficiary-qualification regulations' "three-for-one" standard. 
We also find that the evaluations' misapplication of a truncated and materially incomplete version of 
the true "three-for-one" rule is in itself sufficient grounds for dismissing the appeal and denying the 
petition, for the ultimate opinion of each of the evaluations depends in material pmi upon that 
misapplication. 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted by the petitioner as expeti 
testimony. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to 
accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Jd. USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the 
final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert 
opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id.; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500, n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a form of evidence, does not 
purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the trier of fact to 
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."'). 
Therefore, we conclude that the totality of the evidence regarding the beneficiary's foreign 
education and work experience does not satisfy any criterion at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) and 
(h)( 4)(iii)(D). As the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is qualified to serve in the 
alleged specialty occupation in accordance with the requirements at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) 
and (D), the appeal will be dismissed and the petition will be denied. 
IV. BEYOND THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the petitioner's appeal, we need not address 
other grounds of ineligibilities we observe in the record of proceeding. Nevertheless, we will 
briefly note and summarize it here with the hope and intention that, if the petitioner seeks again to 
employ the beneficiary or another individual as an H-1B employee in the proffered position, it will 
submit sufficient independent objective evidence to address and overcome other additional grounds 
in any future filing. 
As we noted in our discussion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), to establish that a beneficiary is 
qualified to serve in a specialty occupation position by virtue of a combination of education, 
training, and/or work experience, the evidence of record must establish not only ( 1) that the 
beneficiary has sufficient "education, specialized training, and/or progressively responsible 
experience" to satisfy the provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), but also (2) that the 
beneficiary has "recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions directly related to the specialty." We find that neither the evaluations by Drs. . 
and · , nor any other evidence of record satisfies that second requirement. 
Further, as noted, the petitioner has not established that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. Moreover , we further note that the petitioner did not submit sufficient 
credible documentary evidence that it had specialty work available for the beneficiary for the 
duration of the requested time period. 
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
An application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by us even if the service center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), ajj'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Moreover, when we deny a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it shows that we abused our discretion with respect to all of enumerated grounds. 
See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1037, ajj'd, 345 F.3d 683; see also 
BDPCS, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 351 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ("When an 
agency offers multiple grounds for a decision , we will affirm the agency so long as any one of the 
grounds is valid, unless it is demonstrated that the agency would not have acted on that basis if the 
alternative grounds were unavailable."). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.