dismissed H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7260050 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 13, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "MTS 2, software engineer" under 
the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the evidence of 
record does not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. 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 follows below . 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for classification 
as an H-lB nonimmigrant worker must possess: 
(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation , if such licensure is required to 
practice in the occupation, 
(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (1 )(B) for the occupation , or 
(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. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . 
In implementing section 214(i)(2) of the Act, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) states that 
a beneficiary must also meet one of the following criteria in order to qualify to perform services in a 
specialty occupation: 
(]) 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 university 
which has a program for granting such credit based on an individual's training 
and/or work experience; 
2 
(2) The results ofrecognized 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 .... 
Finally, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5): 
For purposes of determining equivalency to a baccalaureate degree in the specialty, 
three years of specialized training and/or work experience must be demonstrated 
for each year of college-level training the alien lacks ... It must be clearly 
demonstrated that the alien's training and/or work experience included the 
theoretical and practical application of specialized knowledge required by the 
specialty occupation; that the alien's experience was gained while working with 
peers, supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the 
specialty occupation; and that the alien has recognition of expertise in the specialty 
evidenced by at least one type of documentation such as: 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two 
recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation;2 
(ii) Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or society 
in the specialty occupation; 
(iii) Published material by or about the alien in professional publications, trade 
journals, books, or major newspapers; 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a foreign 
country; or 
2 The term "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 expe1t; (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 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significant contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
By its very terms, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly for our application and 
determination, and that, also by the clear terms of the rule, experience will merit a positive 
determination only to the extent that the record of proceedings establishes all of the qualifying 
elements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), including, but not limited to, a type of recognition of 
expertise in the specialty occupation. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies for the proffered position based on his foreign 
degree. The record contains a copy of the Beneficiary's master's research student diploma in computer 
architecture and his master's degree diploma in engineering with a major in computer architecture, 
both of which were earned in China. In addition to this, the record contains a foreign academic 
equivalency evaluation from the Trustforte Corporation, as well as academic credential and position 
evaluations from I I a Professor in the Department of Computer Science and 
Engineering at the University o~ I and froml l Associate Professor of 
Computer Science and Information Systems at I !University. According to these 
evaluations, the Beneficiary's Chinese diplomas are equivalent to a U.S. master's degree in computer 
engineering. As discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary has met the requirements delineated in INA § 214(i)(2) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). 
A. Insufficient Evidence 
The record does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l) because the Beneficiary does not possess 
a U.S. degree. It does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(3) because there is no indication the 
Beneficiary holds an unrestricted State license, registration or certification which authorizes him to 
fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged in that specialty in the state of 
intended employment. This leaves 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2) and (4) as the Petitioner's 
remaining paths to satisfying the statutory and regulatory criteria. 
In evaluating eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2), we note that the record contains 
evidentiary deficiencies, namely that the Petitioner failed to submit evidence of the Beneficiary's 
undergraduate degree, transcripts, or other official list or description of his coursework, though these 
items are highly relevant to the matter at hand. We further note that the Director's RFE made mention 
of these types of documents, thereby providing the Petitioner notice and an opportunity to submit 
them, and in fact, specifically requested the Beneficiary's transcripts. The regulations state that the 
Petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the Director, in his or her discretion, may deem 
necessary in the adjudication of the petition. 3 The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit 
further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of 
3 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8), 214.2(h)(9)(i). 
4 
the time the petition is filed.4 As is standard, "[f]ailure to submit requested evidence which precludes 
a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the [petition]." 5 
The Petitioner offers no explanation as to why these documents were not submitted, yet liberally refers 
to information that might be contained in such documents as if this information were available for our 
independent examination. For instance, on pages 4 through 7, 11, 17, and 18 of the Petitioner's RFE 
response, the Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary's master's or undergraduate courses or of specific 
knowledge gained through these studies, but provided no transcript or corroborating evidence of such 
courses or studies undertaken at either the undergraduate or master's degree level. 6 Similarly, the 
Trustforte evaluation references the number of years of study, the nature of the Beneficiary's 
coursework, his grades, as well his research, but it never specifically states how it obtained this 
information or what the information actually is. Rather, it simply refers vaguely to basing the 
evaluation on "copies of the original documents." As we are duty bound to independently evaluate 
the evidence in order to determine how much weight to afford it, and thereby any evaluation based 
upon it, the absence of this evidence undermines the evidentiary value of the academic evaluation as 
a whole. In our discretion, we may discount or give less weight to an evaluation of a person's foreign 
education where that opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. 7 
We cannot know what the evaluator examined in arriving to its conclusions and therefore the 
evaluation is of little value in this matter. We exercise our discretion to conclude that the evaluation 
is wholly unreliable for the purposes of satisfying the requirements under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3). As such, the record contains insufficient evidence to conclude that the 
Petitioner satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2). 
There are five alternative methods by which to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), and those 
methods are set forth at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(])-(5). Turning to the opinion letters from D I land I J we note that each author writes about the relevant coursework one may learn 
in undergraduate programs for computer science, computer engineering, or a related field and how the 
proffered position requires such coursework in order to perform the duties of the position. Absent 
from their analysis is specific reference to whether the Beneficiary has completed such coursework 
and any associated documentation corroborating such a claim. Instead, each professor declares that 
the Beneficiary is qualified, but only vaguely refers to the Beneficiary's "academic documentation" 
as the basis for their opinions. Both letters fail to describe what the Beneficiary's academic 
documentation includes or how their authors arrived at their conclusions based upon it. Without more, 
these evaluations serve only to provide an overview of what types of candidates might be qualified to 
perform the position, which is far from sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary is such a candidate 
and why. 
4 See id. §§ 103.2(b )(1 ), 103.2(b )(8), 103.2(b )(12). 
5 Id.§ 103.2(6)(14). 
6 The Petitioner relies in part on Tapis Int'/ v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) 
for the assertion that the needs of a specialty occupation can be met through education, experience, or some combination 
of the two. We do not dispute this asse1iion, however, the Petitioner has not provided independent and objective evidence 
of the relevant coursework comprising the Beneficiary's education, nor has it submitted evidence of the Beneficiary's 
qualifying experience. As such, Tapis fails to address the Petitioner's underlying evidentiary deficiencies. 
7 Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 817. 820 (Comm'r 1988). 
5 
Moreover, neither of professors' evaluations satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(]), which requires 
"[a]n 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 acknowledge the letters 
from each university confirming thatl I andl I have the authority to grant college­
level credit for training and/or experience at their respective universities. However, we read that in 
both universities, the program for awarding credit generally applies to matriculated students utilizing 
a work study program. The Petitioner has provided no evidence that the Beneficiary has matriculated 
in either of these universities or that his ex:erience and education fall within a work study program. 
As such, it cannot be determined thatl land I lwould be able to authorize credit for 
the training, experience, and education possessed by the Beneficiary. Furthermore, the websites for 
both the University ofj 18 andl luniversity 9 state that in order to recognize an 
education credit transfer, a student must submit their transcripts and course descriptions to be 
evaluated. In fact, both universities only transfer credit when a student has achieved a minimum grade 
or better in the course. These parameters around transferring credits indicate that, by their own 
university standards, providin[ evidence of a master's degree diploma alone would be insufficient 
information forl I and Ito authorize a credit transfer at their respective universities. 
It is generally understood that a bachelor's degree is a prerequisite to a U.S. master's degree program, 
and that typically, bachelor's degrees are four years' of study and master's degrees are two years' of 
~However, this is not an established fact as it pertains to education in China, and specifically, at 
L___JUniversity, where the Beneficiary purportedly earned his master's degree. This is a relevant 
inquiry when examining the evaluations froml 11 l and I I as a whole, as it 
appears from the evidence of record that the Beneficiary has completed a two-year master's degree 
only. Even if the evaluators equate this degree as the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree, the 
evaluations do not adequately account for the completion of a prior bachelor's degree. The Petitioner 
has not established what prerequisites, if any, would be required to pursue a master's degree in China 
or atl I University specifically, or whether the Beneficiary completed any of them. We therefore 
question the assumption that underlies all three evaluations, which is that the pursuit of a master's 
degree in China requires a student to first complete a bachelor's or higher degree ( or its equivalent) 
and that this Beneficiary has done so. 
As the record stands, even if we were to accept the evaluators' opinion that the Beneficiary holds the 
equivalent of a U.S. master of science degree in computer engineering, this only establishes that the 
Beneficiary underwent two years' of equivalent academic study, which is not equivalent to the breadth 
or length of a U.S. bachelor's degree. Furthermore, even if it were established that a bachelor's-level 
education or its equivalent is a prerequisite for pursuing a master's degree in China or atl I 
University specifically, we have no information as to whether the Beneficiary studied in a specific 
specialty. 10 As such, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary has the education, 
8 See https~. du/admissions/intemational/admission-information/undergraduate/transfer-requirements.aspx and 
https://ww edu/undergrad/transfer-student-success/transfer-resources/index.aspx (last visited Feb. 12. 2020). 
9 https://ww .edu/catalog/handbook/academic/advising/intemational.html (last visited Feb. 12, 2020). 
10 A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates 
directly and closely to the position in question. There must be a close conelation between the required specialized studies 
and the position. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). In addition to demonstrating 
6 
training, or experience that is equivalent to the completion of a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree in 
a specific specialty. 
We may, in our discretion, discount or give less weight to an evaluation of a person's foreign education 
where that opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. 11 We exercise 
that discretion in this matter and conclude that these evaluations do not satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) or (3). 
Nor is there sufficient evidence in the record to satisfy 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2) or (4). We 
will therefore tum to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) which grants us the authority to make our own 
determination on the Beneficiary's qualifications. The record is not sufficient to satisfy that criterion 
either, as neither the evaluations, the documents accompanying them, nor any other part of the record 
of proceedings provides sufficient work-experience evidence for us to reasonably conclude that the 
Petitioner has satisfied one of the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v). 
Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the evidence contains sufficient documentation of the 
Beneficiary's work experience so as to qualify for recognition of any years of college-level credit by 
correct application of the H- lB beneficiary-qualification regulations' "three-for-one" standard. 
Therefore, based upon the analysis articulated above, we conclude that the totality of the evidence 
regarding the Beneficiary's 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). 12 
B. Inconsistencies 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary qualifies for any specialty occupation, as he 
has not satisfied any of the requirements under INA§ 214(i)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C), we 
need not fully address other issues evident in the record. That said, we wish to identify these additional 
issues to inform the Petitioner that these matters should be addressed in any future proceedings. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Director should have afforded the evaluations submitted 
byl land I I more weight, in part because they are independent evaluations and the 
evaluators are paid regardless of whether they write an evaluation letter or not. Questions concerning 
the independence of these evaluators arise due to identical language contained in both letters. Among 
numerous other similarities, each letter contains the identical sentence: "[i]n 2010,1 lwas 
awarded a Master of Engineering in Computer Architecture froml I University, an accredited 
institution of higher learning in China, after completing his two-year course of studies." In addition 
to the concerns arising from identical sentences produced from two different professors at two different 
universities, the sentence itself contains the exact same error, namely that the Beneficiary's diploma 
states that it was awarded in 2006, not in 2010. In addition to the shortcomings analyzed in the 
that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge as required by section 
214(i)(l) of the Act a petitioner must also establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher 
degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. We interpret 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) as requiring a degree in 
a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. Royal Siam Cmp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st 
Cir. 2007). 
11 Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817,820 (Comm'r 1988). 
12 Because the record fails to establish that the Beneficiary meets the minimum required qualifications to perform any 
specialty occupation work, we need not address the merits of the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
7 
previous section, the similarity of these evaluations strongly suggests that the authors of the opinions 
were asked to confirm a preconceived notion as to the required degrees, not objectively assess the 
proffered position and opine on the minimum bachelor's degree required, if any, or the Beneficiary's 
qualifications. Similar concerns arise in the letters which verify that the professors have the authority 
to grant college credit. While the Petitioner may claim the evaluators produce independent work, the 
structure, language, and content of these letters are virtually identical, though supposedly produced 
from different universities. This raises questions as to the veracity of the documents themselves and 
only further erodes the probative value of these letters and evaluations. 
Aside from the Beneficiary's qualifications for the position, the pet1t10n contains additional 
inconsistencies concerning the position itself The Petitioner stated twice in its RFE response that the 
proffered "position of MTS 2, Software Engineer is similar in nature and scope as to what the OOH 
[ Occupational Outlook Handbook] lists as typical duties for the position of a Software Developer. As 
such, the offered position of MTS 2, Software Engineer is appropriately classified as a Software 
Developer." However, on appeal, the Petitioner argues that "the SOC code for this position falls under 
a category that limits the amount of evidence available. There is a glut of information on Software 
Developers, but an MTS 2, Software Engineer is a much more narrow and specialized field that the 
Department of Labor does not cover in the Occupational Outlook Handbook [ OOHJ. For this reason, 
the expert testimony ofl I andl I are extremely helpful..." This seemin~ 
contradictory language undermines the Petitioner's overall argument concerning the opinions ofLJ 
I I and I l and it also indicates that the Petitioner has not clearly defined its position. 
Additional inconsistencies raise further questions as to the Beneficiary's educational qualifications. 
In its RFE response, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's completion of coursework while 
earning his master's degree qualified him to perform several of the duties listed in bullets with 
percentages. However, elsewhere within the same RFE response, the Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary "acquired the fundamental skills and knowledge of software development throughout his 
undergraduate studies." It is unclear from these statements and the evidence of record what 
coursework and degree the Petitioner requires as its minimum entry requirement, as well as how the 
Beneficiary meets these standards. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of 
a specialty occupation position and the appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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