dismissed H-1B Case: Software Engineering

(b)(6)
MATTER OF V -, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 16, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIASERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR 
A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a web application framework developer, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a 
"software engineer 1 expert)" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification . See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . The 
H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor 's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty 
occupation . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional 
evidence in support of the visa petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 ofthe degree described in paragraph (l)(B) for the occupation, or 
(C) (i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, 
and 
I 
Matter of V-, Inc. ' 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
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: 
(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. 
Therefore, to qualify a beneficiary for chtssification as. an H -1 B nonimmigrant worker under the Act, 
the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary possesses the requisite degree or its foreign 
equivalent. Alternatively, if a 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: 
(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); 
2 
· Matter of V-, Inc. 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 1 
· ( 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 determiningequivalency 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) 
(ii) 
Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two 
recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation; 2 
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; 
1 The Petitioner should note that, in accordance with this provision, we will accept a credential evaluation service's 
evaluation of education only, not training and/or work 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). A recognized authority's 
opinion must state: (1) the writer's qualifications as an expert; (2) the writer's experience giving such opinions, citing 
specific instances where past opinions have been accepted as authoritative and by whom; (3) how the conclusions were 
reached; and (4) the basis for the conclusions supported by copies or citations of any research material used. ld 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-, Inc. 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a 
foreign country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be 
significantcontributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
It is always worth noting that, by its very terms, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is a matter strictly 
for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 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 
As indicated above, the Petitioner is a web application framework developer that seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as a software engineer ( expert). According to the Petitioner, the proffered 
position requires at least a bachelor's degree in management information systems, computer 
engineering, information technology, or a closely related field, or its equivalent. 
The evidence of record reflects that the Beneficiary possesses a foreign degree, which has been 
evaluated by as the equivalent to three. 
years·of academic coursework in the United 
States.3 Because a U.S. bachelor's degree is generally found to require four years of education, 
Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977), and three years of specialized training 
and/or work experience must be demonstrated for each year of college-level training the Beneficiary 
lacks, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary has at 
least three years of relevant work experience in order to demonstrate that he possesses the equivalent 
to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty directly related to the proffered position. 
A. 
In this matter, the Petitioner submitted an evaluation from a professor of 
computer science at However, we 
find that evaluation is insufficient to meet the requirements of 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." 
3 The evaluation from ·also stated that the Beneficiary has the equivalent to a bachelor's degree in 
management information systems based on a combination of his education and work experience. However, this portion 
of the evaluation is not acceptable because, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(J), USC IS will accept a 
credential evaluation service's evaluation of education only, not training and/or work experience. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-, Inc. 
First, the Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that has authority to grant college-
level credit. The Petitioner submitted letters from office of the registrar, dean of research 
and graduate studies, and department of computer science chair. All of these letters vaguely state 
that is "involved in the process of reviewing the credentials of foreign applicants, 
students, [and] prospective students." They also vaguely state that and other professors 
"evaluate such credentials and determine whether 
is to award or recognize credit based on students foreign education and industry knowledge." 
These letters fall substantially short of stating that has the actual authority to grant 
college-level credits. Instead, these letters suggest that authority is limited to that of 
reviewing and providing recommendations to the school. 
Furthermore, the letters do not sufficiently establish that has a program for granting such 
credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience in the particular specialty of 
management information systems, or another closely related field. In particular, the letter from the 
computer science department chair states that the department has a program "in work study fashion 
for matriculated students."4 The Petitioner supplemented the record with a print-out from 
program for granting "life experience credit" which details several other requirements under this 
program (e.g., that the life experiences must have been gained during specific time frames, and that 
such credits "can not be applied to area(s) of concentration"). Based on this information, it appears 
that, for a degree in management information systems or a computer-related field, the program for 
obtaining "life experience credit" is limited to matriculated students who are enrolled in a work 
study program and who must also demonstrate other eligibility criteria. Due to the limitations 
imposed on the program, we cannot find that it fully equates to a program for granting college level 
credit "based on an individual's training and/or work experience in the particular specialty," as 
required by the plain 
language of the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(J). 
Even if the Petitioner were able to overcome these fundamental deficiencies regarding 
authority to grant credits and program for granting credit for training and/or 
work experience in the specialty, we still would find evaluation insufficient. That is, 
has not demonstrated a sound factual basis for his conclusions. 
In his evaluation, states that, while he does not know the Beneficiary personally, he 
reviewed the Beneficiary's "academic documentation, resume, and employment verification letters." 
But neither nor the Petitioner supplied a copy of the Beneficiary's resume for the 
record of proceedings. We therefore cannot evaluate the accuracy of the document upon which 
based his evaluation. We note that an evaluation of work experience which relied 
primarily, if not exclusively, on a beneficiary's resume is generally of limited evidentiary value. 
That is because a resume represents a claim made by a beneficiary, rather than objective evidence to 
support that claim. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally 
4 The letter from the dean of research and graduate studies similarly states that "[t]his program is conducted using work­
study for matriculated studies." The letter from the registrar's office more generally states that "credit-granting policies 
may vary on a department-to-department or student-by-student basis." 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-, Inc. 
will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter (~f Sojfici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter q[Treasure Craft qfCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); 
·see also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 
376. 
We also do not know, and thus cannot assess, what employment verification letters 
claims to have reviewed. While the Petitioner submits two employment verification letters for the 
first time on appeal, there are no letters from two of the Beneficiary's other previous employers (i.e., 
and Moreover, the two employment letters 
the Petitioner submitted on appeal were both written in July of 2016, whereas 
evaluation is dated May 25, 2016. As the record does not sufficiently demonstrate what 
documentation (and their contents) purportedly reviewed, the record does not 
demonstrate that he had a sound factual basis for his conclusions. · 
Moreover, provides inconsistent and inaccurate statements that further lead us to 
question his reliability. F~r example, newest letter submitted on appeal (which 
purports to recognize the Beneficiary's expertise) states that he "learned about [the Beneficiary's] 
qualifications based on his academic transcripts and CV [curriculum vitae]." His newest letter does 
not mention any employment verification letters, and thus, appears to undermine his prior statement 
that he reviewed such documents. evaluation additionally states that the Beneficiary 
completed a "five year program" at the and that based on his academic 
coursework alone, "it is certainly equivalent to a Bachelor of Science degree in Biotechnology from 
a university in the United States." But on appeal the Petitioner acknowledges that this statement was 
made "in error." The Petitioner specifically states that the Beneficiary has the equivalent to three 
years ofU.S. academic coursework, and does not have the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in 
biotechnology based on education alone. 5 These inconsistencies undermine overall 
credibility. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (doubt cast on any aspect of the 
Petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluations of the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence of 
record). 
For all the above reasons, we find that opinion letter lends little probative value to 
this matter. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). 
We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion. 
Matter of Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or give less weight to 
that evaluation. !d. 
5 The Petitioner has never claimed that the Beneficiary possesses a foreign master's degree. statement 
regarding the Beneficiary's five-year program appears to be based on the Beneficiary's translated transcript, which states 
his level of education as "uniform Master's degree studies" and the duration of studies as "5 years (3+2)." But 
elsewhere, the Beneficiary's translated transcript clearly indicates that his studies were three years in length. 
Furthermore, the record contains a copy of the Beneficiary's actual diploma for a "licencjata" degree, which the 
translated transcript specifies is "a degree obtained after completing vocational higher studies lasting 3 or 3.5 years." 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-, Inc. 
B. Service Determination 
We also determine that the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's combined education 
and work experience is the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). 
First, the pertinent statute and regulation require the Petitioner to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
has obtained "progressively responsible" positions and experience in or related to the specialty. 
Section 
214(i)(2) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). 
As previously mentioned, the Petitioner submitted lette~s from only two of the Beneficiary's four 
prior employers. Without evidence regarding the Beneficiary's employment for these two other 
employers, we cannot adequately determine whether the Beneficiary's positions and work 
experiences have been "progressively responsible." 
Even the two employment letters submitted for the record are insufficiently detailed to demonstrate 
the "progressively responsible" nature of the Beneficiary's positions. They also do not contain 
sufficient information to "clearly" demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets the requirements imposed 
by 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). The letter from the simply 
states that the Beneficiary's duties were "development of business-intelligence-supporting web 
applications and dashboards." This letter does not further specify the Beneficiary's job duties, their 
level of responsibility or difficulty, the bodies of knowledge required in their performance, among 
other pertinent information. While the letter from the Petitioner's parent company (where the 
Beneficiary is currently employed) provides slightly more details, it still does not sufficiently 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's specific job duties, and whether they require the theoretical and 
practical applicatipn of specialized knowledge. Moreover, none of the submitted letters establish 
whether the Beneficiary's work experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or 
subordinates who have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation. Jd. 
Based on the limited evidence of record, we cannot find that the Beneficiary's specialized training 
and/or work experience is equivalent to at least a U.S. bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. 
Finally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) imposes a separate requirement to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary "has recognition of expertise in the specialty evidenced by at least one type of 
documentation" listed therein. The Petitioner has not met this additional requirement, either. 
Documentation to satisfy this prong of the regulation can include "[r]ecognition of expertise in the 
specialty occupation by at least two recognized authorities in the same specialty occupation." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i). 6 However, the Petitioner submits only one letter (from 
which clearly does not meet the requirement that the documentation come from "at least 
6 The Petitioner does not claim, and the record does not demonstrate, that the Beneficiary satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(ii)-(v), 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-, Inc. 
two recognized authorities." ld. (emphasis added). Because the Petitioner has not made this 
threshold showing, we will not further discuss the deficiencies with letter, including 
the lack of evidence demonstrating that he can be considered a "recognized authority" within the 
meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
For the reasons outlined above, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o.fOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fV-, Inc., ID# 65686 (AAO Nov. 16, 2016) 
8