dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21564948 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 14, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(HXi)(b) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15XH)(iXb). 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was qualified to perform the duties 
of the proffered position. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of 
proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter 
ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. 
Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de nova review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. ANALYSIS 
After considering the entire record , including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, 
we adopt and affirm the Director ' s ultimate determination with the comments below . See Matter of 
P. Singh , Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 , 624 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 
874 (BIA 1994 )); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal 
decides that the facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately 
confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer , then the tribunal is free simply to 
adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case) . 
The Beneficiary possesses a foreign degree from India and does not possess a U.S. bachelor's or higher 
degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(h)( 4 )(iii)(C)(l) . Before the Director, the Petitioner did not offer evidence that his foreign 
degree was determined to be equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree or higherrequired by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university . See 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C)(2). Nor did it 
illustrate that the Beneficiary's education , specialized training, or progressively responsible 
experience is equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the 
specialty occupation. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)( 4). Such equivalency for H-IB candidates 
may only be demonstrated through the means prescribed in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l)--{5). 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not identify a specific error in the Director's decision and only 
reasserted the Beneficiary's eligibility by discussing his foreign degree transcripts and coursework. 
The Petitioner did not offer an evaluation of the Beneficiary's education or experience as required by 
the regulation, nor did it off er evidence and arguments otherwise required by the regulation. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden here, and the 
petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2