remanded H-1B Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 27, 2024 In Re: 33080397 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner is a private educational organization that seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a lead guide under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB 
program allows a U.S. employer to file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) 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 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Beneficiary was qualified to occupy the 
offered 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 of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. 
Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will 
withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with 
the following analysis. 
We begin addressing a threshold matter before we evaluate the merits of the Director's decision and 
the Petitioner's appeal. Specifically, a beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant 
only when the job is found to be a specialty occupation. We follow long-standing legal standards and 
determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, 
and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the Petitioner filed the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 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]."). 
The Director's decision did not include a determination that the offered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. The Director should first ensure the position qualifies as a specialty occupation in the 
jurisdiction in which the Petitioner designated she would perform the work for the lschool. 
Because the Director did not address the specialty occupation aspect, it is generally appropriate to 
remand the matter for them to perform that function in the first instance. Velasquez-Castillo v. 
Garland, 91 F.4th 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2024). 
Denying the petition, the Director made adverse determinations relating to the institutions of higher 
education themselves and then relating to the professor's letters. First the Director determined the 
Petitioner didn't present evidence that any of the institutions in question had a program for granting 
college level credits based on training or work experience in the specialty. We agree with the Director 
that the evaluations from do not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's qualifications because the record does not reflect that these institutions, and by 
extensions the professors working for them, have a program for granting college-level credit in the 
specialty based on an individual's training or work experience; only that they grant college-level 
credits. 
That brings us to The Petitioner submitted a letter from their College of Business 
Dean, and the Director should evaluate whether this institution meets all the regulation's requirements 
for this type of evidence. We highlight that is an accredited college or university 
that has a program for granting college-level credit to "satisfy major, core, or general elective 
requirements" based on an individual's training or work experience. Their program for granting 
credits to satisfy requirements in one's major appears to adhere to the regulatory requirement that the 
institution grant college-level credit in the specialty. 
Moving to the second basis in the Director's decision, they ascribed the professors' opinions with less 
evidentiary weight after noting they relied on deficient experience letters, concluding the evaluations 
were not sufficiently supported by the record. It is under this element that we disagree with the 
Director's methodology. In particular, to qualify under the degree equivalency regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C)( 4), petitioners must not only demonstrate the equivalence to completion of a 
United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation, but also that the foreign 
worker has "recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions 
directly related to the specialty." 
Within the denial decision, the Director correctly noted that when attempting to qualify the beneficiary 
based on her education, training, and/or progressively responsible experience, the regulation requires 
a showing that the beneficiary has recognition of expertise in the specialty, through progressively 
responsible positions directly related to the specialty. But when discussing experience letters in the 
record, the Director utilized language and concepts contained in a different portion of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5). That language indicated: 
[O]ne of the letters are not from recognized authorities. Accordingly, another of the 
letters do not describe in detail whether the beneficiary's work experience was 
progressively responsible work experience; whether the beneficiary's training and/or 
work experience included the theoretical and practical application of specialized 
knowledge required by the specialty occupation; and whether the beneficiary's 
experience was gained while working with peers, supervisors, or subordinates who 
have a degree or its equivalent in the specialty occupation. 
2 
Although 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) does contain a "recognition of expertise" provision, it 
differs from the type of "recognition of expertise" standard described at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). Because the Director was performing analysis under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4), the proper methodology would have been to only apply the "recognition of 
expertise" provision to decide whether the Beneficiary had such recognition "through progressively 
responsible positions directly related to the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)( 4). In other 
words, the Director should consider the experience letters to determine whether she developed 
expertise in the specialty through (1) positions that were directly related to the specialty, and (2) were 
positions that were progressively responsible. 
If within the remand, the Director elects to engage in a Service determination under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5), they should sufficiently express they are engaging in that analysis, cite the 
regulation, and analyze the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v). 
But qualifications are not the end of the analysis, and the Director should 
evaluate Professor I I opinion under the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). We note the professor seems to discuss a portion of the Beneficiary's 
experience for which there is no supporting evidence in the record to corroborate his analysis, nor does 
he identify the source of this information. The missing evidence relates to the Beneficiary's claimed 
work for the International English Language Testing System Trainer. 
A beneficiary's work experience should generally be demonstrated through sufficiently probative 
evidence such as letters from previous employers that describes the duties and responsibilities in which 
the foreign national engaged in his previous work that satisfies the Petitioner's experience 
requirements. Typically, these are the individuals who directed or supervised a beneficiary's 
performance and duties during the period in question and can provide a firsthand account of whether 
such responsibilities were of a qualifying nature, and whether the position was full time and 
compensated. Such material could provide a firsthand account of the Beneficiary's experience 
offering a basis for the amount of experience the professor stated she possessed. 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to consider the specialty 
occupation issue and other beneficiary qualification issues and enter a new decision. The Director 
may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any other 
issue. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3