dismissed H-1B Case: Software Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-T- INC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 3, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"quality assurance analyst" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 1 Ol(a)( 15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-18 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 of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty 
occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred m the 
decision. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
As indicated, the issue before us is whether the Beneficiary would be qualified for the proffered 
position. However, beyond the decision of the Director, we will first determine whether the record 
of proceedings establishes that the pro tiered position qualities as a specialty occupation. 1 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
1 A beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to qualify as a specialty 
occupation. We are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation, and second, whether a 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]."). 
Matter of C-T- Inc 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
(I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree'' to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto_ft; 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing 
"a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
B. Proffered Position 
In the H-lB petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as an in-house "quality 
assurance analyst." In its letter of support, the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job duties in the 
proffered position. 2 In addition, the Petitioner stated that a "Bachelor's degree in Sciences IS 
sufficient for many entry-level research, administrative, management, trainee, and sales jobs.'~ 
2 We observe that the wording of the duties provided by the Petitioner for the proffered position in the letter of support is 
taken almost verbatim from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) OnLine's list of tasks for the occupational 
category ''Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers.'' Further, without explanation, the Petitioner referenced 
the proffered position as a "Systems Analyst" position. 
2 
.
Matter of C-T-Ine 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner clarified that the Beneficiary 
will be working on the '' project for its client 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a revised job description for the proffered 
position , along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on each duty: 
Prepare test strategies, and execute test cases on complex systems 
- Work with users and development team to create test plan 5% 
- Create test set-up that can work for multi-complex testing 
Ensure that quality processes are carried out through all phases of the 
Software Development Lifecycle 15% 
- Follow SDLC life cycle 
- Attend all process check points and provide GO/No-GO 
Innovate testing methodologies to allow better , more automated, and 15% 
more complete testing 
Work directly with architects during design phase and software 5% 
engineers in development phase 
Build test plans for all new features of the platform to further 
empower Demand Generation , Automation, Pipeline Management , 10% 
and Event Marketing, Sales and Marketin g, and other aspects of the 
platform 
- Utilize automation tools , QTP and create test platform 
- Ensure to accommodate new feature testing 
Monitor bug resolution efforts and track success (Pass/Fail) 15% 
Create or maintain database of known test defects in HP QC 10% 
Prototyping and testing core business logic , web services, and 15% 
database automation design tor all internal and external aQQ_lications 
Provide ongomg status, risk-analysis and coverage reports to 10% 
management 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from the client , which lists the same job duties as above and 
states that the proffered position requires "at a minimum , a Bachelor 's degree in Computer Science , 
Information Tec hnology, Engineering, or the equivalent with some experienc e." 
C. Analysis 
For the reasons set out below , we have determined that the Petitioner has n'ot demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 Specifically, the record (l) does not describe 
3 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 
Matter of C-T- Inc 
the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does not establish that the job duties require an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation.
4 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding the minimum 
requirements for the proffered position. In the ·letter of support, the Petitioner stated that a 
"Bachelor's degree in Sciences is suf1icient for many entry-level research, administrative, 
management, trainee, and sales jobs.'' However, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that· 
the duties of the proffered position "could not be performed by someone who did not have a college 
degree in computer science, computer engineering, computer applications, information systems or a 
related field." Further, in the same letter, the Petitioner claimed that the proffered position "requires 
the services of a person holding a baccalaureate degree in a field directly relevant to the profTered 
position, to include the fields of Computer Science, Electronics Engineering, and Information 
Systems." In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the client that states that the position 
requires "a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Information Technology, Engineering, or the 
equivalent with some experience." No explanation for the variances in the requirements was 
provided by the Petitioner. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's claim that a bachelor's degree in sciences, computer science, computer 
engineering, computer applications, information systems, electronics engineering, information 
technology, or engineering is a sufficient minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position 
is inadequate to establish that the proposed position qualifies as a specialty occupation. ln general, 
provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., sales and marketing, a minimum of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act. 
In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the 
same. Since there must be a close correlation between the required '·body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of degrees in disparate fields, 
such as sciences and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required "body of 
highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. 5 Section 
214(i)(l )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The Petitioner has not made this showing. On the basis 
4 
The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
5 
While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty,'' we do not so narrowly interpret 
these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry 
requirement, degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See section 214(i)( I )(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again. the evidence of record 
establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the 
particular position. 
4 
Matter ofC-T- Inc 
of the proffered position's educational requirement, we cannot find that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
We also cannot find that the proffered position qualities as a specialty occupation, as the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the proffered position satisfies any of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) for the reasons set out below. 6 
D. First Criterion 
We turn first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, 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. 7 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 8 submitted in support of the 1-I-1 B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Computer Occupations, All 
Other" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-1 199.9 
We note that there are occupational categories which are not covered in detail by the Handbook. as 
well as occupations for which the Handbook does not provide any information. The Handbook 
states the following about these occupations: 
6 
Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
7 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
8 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to us to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the higher of 
either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment'' or the actual wage paid by the 
employer to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. See 
Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 545-546 (AAO 20 15). 
9 
The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (I) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised __ ll_2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
5 
Matter ~~ C-T- Inc 
Although employment for hundreds of occupations 1s covered in detail in the 
Occupational Outlook Handbook. this page presents summary data on additional 
occupations for which employment projections are prepared but detailed occupational 
information is not developed. For each occupation, the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) code, the occupational definition, 2014 employment, the May 
2014 median annual wage, the projected employment change and growth rate from 
2014 to 2024, and education and training categories are presented. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2016-17 ed., 
"Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/About/Data-for­
Occupations-Not-Covered-in-Detail.htm (last visited Mar. 22, 2017). 
Thus, the narrative of the Handbook reports that there are some occupations for which only summary 
data is prepared but detailed occupational profiles are not developed. 10 The Handbook suggests that 
for at least some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be developed. 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to provide persuasive 
evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies the statutory and regulatory 
provisions, including this or one of the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the 
Handbook's, support on the issue. In such cases, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide 
probative evidence (e.g., documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that indicates 
whether the particular position in question qualifies as a specialty occupation. Whenever more than 
one authoritative source exists, we will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to 
determine whether the particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to 
substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(l). 
E. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or. in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]". 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
10 
We note that occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range of 
occupations, including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers of artists, 
performers, and athletes; farm and home management advisors; audio-visual and multimedia collections specialists; 
clergy; merchandise displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line supervisors of police and detectives; 
crossing guards; travel guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
6 
.
,tfatter ofC-T- Inc 
casts its gaze upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by us 
include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; w·hether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava. 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on 
the matter. 
ln support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review ofthe documents, \Ve find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, we note that some of the job postings do not appear to involve 
organizations similar to the Petitioner. For example, the Petitioner is an eleven-person, software 
services company, whereas the advertising organizations include: 
• -a financial services firm; 
• - a financial information services company; 
• - a financial services firm; and 
• a company specializing in business process .and document management . 
The Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceedings to establish that these advertising 
organizations are similar. 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, 
and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing 
(to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient fur the Petitioner to claim that 
an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an 
assertion. 
7 
.
Matter ofC-T- Inc 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to be for parallel positions. For example, some 
of the positions appear to be for more senior positions than the proffered position. 11 Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the 
advertised positions are parallel to the proffered position. 
In addition, some of the postings do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a directly related specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) is required. 12 The job postings suggest, at best, that a bachelor's degree 
is sometimes required for quality assurance analyst positions, but not a bachelor's degree in a 
specific .specialty (or its equivalent). 13 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions 
among similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered positiOn qualities as a specialty occupation, the 
Petitioner described the proffered position and its business operations. In response to the RFE, the 
Petitioner asserted that the duties of the proffered position are complex and can only be performed 
by an individual with a bachelor's degree. However, the Petitioner designated the proffered position 
11 
For instance, the posting for 
In addition, the advertisement for 
experience. 
requires a degree and "3+" years of quality assurance experience. 
requires a degree and "2-5 years" of quality assurance testing 
12 
As discussed, since there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields would not meet the statutory requirement that 
the degree be "in the specific specialty," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties 
and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially 
an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 214(i)( 1 )(B) of the Act (emphasis added). Further, a preference 
for a degree in a field is not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. 
13 
It must be noted that even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See 
generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that 
the advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even 
if the sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andorn selection is the key to [the] 
process [of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which 
provides the basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
8 
Matter ofC-T- Inc 
as an entry-level position within the occupational category (by selecting a Level I wage). 14 This 
designation, when read in combination with the Petitioner's job descriptions. further suggests that 
the particular position is not so complex or unique that the duties can only be performed an 
individual with bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While related 
courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified tor the position, and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative 
complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks 
that are so complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
F. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, tor the position. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that it employs two individuals in the proffered position. 
The Petitioner submitted the foreign academic credentials and pay statements of these two 
individuals. Notably, the Petitioner did not provide academic credential evaluations to establish that 
these foreign degrees are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner claimed that it currently employs quality assurance analysts, the 
Petitioner did not provide the job duties and day-to-day responsibilities of the employees that it 
claimed serve in positions that are the same as the proffered position. The Petitioner did not provide 
any information regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent 
judgment required or the amount of supervision received. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
14 The Petitioner's designation ofthis position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, unique, and specialized compared to other positions 1vithin the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualities 
as a specialty occupation ifthat higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 214(i}( I) of the Act. 
9 
Matter of C-T- Inc 
established that the duties and responsibilities of these individuals are the same as the Beneficiary's 
in the proffered position. 
Without more, the record does not establish that the Petitioner normally requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty; or its equivalent, directly related to the duties of the position. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(J). 
G. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by 
the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. The Petitioner. does not establish how the 
generally described duties of its quality assurance analyst elevate the proffered position to a specialty 
occupation. We again refer to our comments regarding the implications of the Petitioner's 
designation of the proffered position at a Level I wage level. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. For the reasons discussed above, the evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Therefore, the 
Director's decision is affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed for this reason. 
II. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary was not qualified to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. However, as noted above, a beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are 
relevant only when the job is found to be a specialty occupation. As discussed in this decision, the 
evidence of record does not establish that the proffered position requires a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. However,. in order to address the Director's decision, 
we will discuss whether the evidence submitted was sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
was qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position as described. 
10 
Matter of C- T- Inc 
A. 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) 
(ii) 
experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such 
degree, and 
recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
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: 
(J) 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 classification 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, 
II 
Matter ofC-T- Inc 
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: 
(1) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit 
for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or 
university which has a program for granting such credit based on an 
individual's training and/or work experience; 
(2) The results of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special 
credit programs, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or 
Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 15 
( 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 
15 
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. 
12 
.
Matter of C-T- Inc 
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; 16 
(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 new~papers; 
(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 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 our application and deteimination, 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. 
B. Analysis 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualities for the proffered position based on a combination 
of his education and progressively responsible experience. 
1. Evaluation 
In support of its assertion, the Petitioner submitted an evaluation from an 
associate dean - academic affairs at the 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." 
16 
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 )(i i). 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 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. 
13 
.
Matter of C-T- Inc 
First, the record does not establish that 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from the 
The letter states that '' 
credits through 
has the authority to grant college-level credit. 
dean of the 
authorizes the granting of"life experience" 
degree completion program offered through the 
However
, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating the extent of 
pat1icipation in or personal knowledge of the program (which according to the dean's letter 
is administered by an entity other than the business school, namely , the 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support the statement regarding "life 
experience" credits through the program at the 
Further, the letter from the dean does not establish that involvement in the 
program qualities him as "an official who has authority to grant 
college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty." Specifically, the dean claims 
that 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 proceedings throws little light on this aspect of the 
program. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to establish both what constitutes "life experience" as defined for credit-
assessment in the program, and also that "life experience" evaluated for credit in the 
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 qualif ying as an 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214 .2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(J) official. ThePetitioner has not met that burden . We find that the Petitioner 
has not established that 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 progr am 
in granting such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience. 
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. Jvfatter of'S ea. 
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. 
I d. 
2. Service Determination 
We also determine that the record does not demonstrate that the Beneticiary'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). 
14 
.
Matter~~ C-T- Inc 
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). 
In support of its claim , the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's resume ; however, the resume 
represents a claim by the Beneficiary, rather than evidence to support that claim. The Petitioner also 
submitted employment letters. However , the letters 
are insufficiently detailed to demonstrate the 
"progressively responsible" nature of the Beneficiary ' s positions. Moreover, the letters do not 
establish whether the Beneficiary's work experience was gained while working with peers, 
supervisors, or subordinates who have a degree in the specialty occupation, or its equivalent as 
required by the regulations. 
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). 17 However , the Petitioner submits only one letter (ti·om 
which does not meet the requirement that the documentation come from "at least two 
recognized authorities." /d. Because the Petitioner has not made this threshold showing , we will not 
further discuss the deficiencies with letter . 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of 
a specialty occupation. For this additional reason, the appeal is dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-T- Inc, ID# 310321 (AAO Apr. 3, 2017) 
17 
The Petitioner does not claim, and the record does not demonstrate , that the Beneticiar y satisties the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(ii)-(v) , 
15