remanded H-1B Case: Shipping

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9605513 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 26, 2020 
The Petitioner, a shipping agency, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily under the H-18 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations.1 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. The Director subsequently denied the Petitioner's motion to reconsider that adverse 
decision. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 We review the questions in this matter 
de novo.3 While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in 
this case. 
First, we agree with the Petitioner that the Director's adverse decision on its motion to reconsider was 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy. In particular, the Petitioner provided a detailed job 
description within its response to the request for evidence that offered more substance than the Director 
ascribed to it in the decision denying the petition. The Petitioner raised that issue within its motion 
brief, but the Director did not acknowledge and address that aspect. 
Next and on the issue of the position qualifying as a specialty occupation, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has demonstrated the position qualifies as such by a preponderance of the evidence. The 
Petitioner's description, when reviewed within the broader context of its operations, depicts a position 
that includes duties sufficiently complex that a qualifying degree would be required to perform them. 
Considering the aggregate of the evidence as it existed before the Director, the full spectrum of the 
duties persuades us to conclude in the Petitioner's favor on that issue. As a result, the Petitioner has 
demonstrated that it is more likely than not, that the nature of the position's duties is so specialized 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Chri sta's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
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.4 The Petitioner has also 
established that the position satisfies the statutory definition of a specialty occupation found within 
section 214(i)(1) of the Act. 
Nevertheless, the petition does not appear to be approvable. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary 
possesses the equivalent of a baccalaureate or higher degree based on her foreign education and 
professional work experience. The Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary's equivalence to a baccalaureate 
degree under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) by combining her "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 .... " 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), equivalence to completion of a United 
States baccalaureate or higher degree may be established through one or more of four methods. The 
Petitioner provided an evaluation from a credentials evaluation service. The credentialed evaluation 
services method is governed under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(3) that provides the requisite degree 
equivalence shall be determined by "[a]n evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation 
service which specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials .... " This method is limited 
to the credentials evaluation service evaluating a beneficiary's education and does not permit such an 
entity to evaluate a foreign national's training or work experience. 
As a result, the summary of the evaluation that determined the Beneficiary's education and experience 
are the equivalent of at least a Bachelor of Science degree with a dual major in computer information 
systems and business administration from an accredited institution of higher learning in the United 
States, is not in accordance with the governing regulation. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to consider the Beneficiary qualifications 
issue 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. 
4 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
2