sustained H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21549831 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 12,2022 
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 Vermont 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 for 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 nova. 
Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will 
sustain 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)(l)(B) mandates that a specialty occupation requires "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 ." 1 Furthermore , section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an 
individual applying for classification as an H-1 B 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 
1 We generally acknowledge thatthe core essenceofthis provision is the knowledge one attains in a specialty area, rather 
than a title various institutions might assign to a particular degree. 
(C)(i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of such degree, and 
(ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible 
positions relating to the specialty. 
In implementingsection214(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: 
(1) 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. 
In order to equate a beneficiary's credentials to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree, the Petitioner 
must satisfy at least one of the provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), which states: 
Equivalence to completion of a college degree. For purposes of paragraph 
(h)( 4 )(iii)(C)( 4) of this section, equivalence to completion of a United States 
baccalaureate or higher degree shall mean achievement of a level of knowledge, 
competence, and practice in the specialty occupation that has been determined to be 
equal to that of an individual who has a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty 
and shall be determined by 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 (PONS!); 
2 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which 
specializes in evaluating foreign educational credentials; 
( 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 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; 2 
(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 newspapers; 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a foreign 
country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be significant 
contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
2 The term "recognized authority" means a person or organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or 
knowledge in that field, and theexpetiise torenderthe typeofopinionrequested. 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 pa st 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 ofanyresearchmaterialused. Id. 
3 
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 at8 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 
On the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "Developer I, ETL." The 
Petitioner stated that the position requires a bachelor's degree in "Computer Science, Mathematics, or 
a related field ( or its equivalent)." When responding to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the 
Petitioner further stated that the candidate must have a foundational knowledge in the quantitative 
disciplines of computer science and related principles. 
Within the initial filing, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was qualified to serve in the 
position because she possessed the minimum required education in the form of a Master of Science 
degree in chemical and biochemical engineering from a U.S. institution of higher education and a 
foreign bachelor's degree in applied chemistry. When responding to the RFE, the Petitioner further 
indicated that she has progressive experience within the field of data and computer science. The 
Beneficiary earned a bachelor of engineering in applied science from University of 
Technology in China. In the United States, she earned a Master of Science in Chemical and 
Biochemical Engineering from • I She also completed 
coursework relating to databases and cloud computing from I I University. The 
Beneficiary gained experience related to the specialty working for two organizations from April of 
2018 until the Petitioner filed the petition in August of 2021. 
The first experience letter reflected that the Beneficiary gathered key data from social media to develop 
marketing strategies for the organization, developed a dashboard and analytics to provide management 
with business insight, and automated the monitoring and evaluation of data to measure performance 
as it related to goals and benchmarks. According to the second experience letter, the Beneficiary made 
performance improvements and efficiencies on large scale platforms, performed data analysis and data 
integration through the data pipeline and in the database environment, automated efficiencies in the 
database environment, and improved workflow among other related duties on several projects. 
The Petitioner submitted an evaluation of the Beneficiary's credentials to support their eligibility 
claims. A review of the evaluator's qualifications to opine demonstrates that he satisfies the regulatory 
requirements for such assessments at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(/). As it relates to the 
Beneficiary's qualifications under 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)( 4)(iii)(C)( 4), the evaluator concluded that based 
on the Beneficiary's foreign and domestic education when combined with more than three years of 
work experience in progressively responsible positions directly related to the specialty (i.e., 
"recognition of expertise" from a credit-granting, college-level evaluating official), that she possessed 
the equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor of Science in Data Science from an accredited institution of higher 
learning in the United States. 
The Director denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
was qualified to occupy the offered position because the record did not establish that they satisfied 
4 
any of the requirements at8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(e)(l)--{ 4). Specifically, the Director determined 
that the evidence was not sufficient to satisfy the regulatory requirements under 8 e.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h )( 4 )(iii)(D). Reviewing the Director's decision, it appears that they conflated the regulatoty 
requirements for two methods of evaluating the Beneficiary's qualifications. The method the 
Petitioner requested was via a credentials evaluation under 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(e)(4), (D)(l). 
We recap the Director's analysis for clarity. The Director first concluded that the Beneficiary did not 
possess sufficient college-level studies, which meant she would require 12 years of qualifying 
experience that also fulfills the criteria outlined in the regulations as to progressively responsible w01k 
experience and other requirements. The Director then noted that the experience letters detailed three 
years of work, but stated the following: 
[T]he letters do not show that 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. 
We note that aside from the progressively responsible experience element, the remainder of these 
requirements are only found under a users determination and not under a credentials evaluation, and 
the Petitioner only asserted that they qualified under the credentials evaluation method found at 
8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l). 
The Director subsequently discussed the credentials evaluation and noted its conclusions, but did not 
offer any analysis on the evaluator's findings. The Director then returned to the users determination 
method-although without citing to it-noting the need for the Petitioner to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary has three years of experience for each year the Beneficiary lacks. The Director then 
concluded that she has not acquired the equivalency to a bachelor's degree in data science or in a 
closely related field. The Director subsequently cited to 8 e.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(e)( 4) and stated 
the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary was qualified to perform the offered position's duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's methodology in the denial. The Petitioner notes 1hey 
are permitted to combine the Beneficiary's education and work experience as described in the 
regulation. Although the Petitioner discusses the Beneficiary's current efforts to earn a Master of 
Information Technology, they may only rely on the Beneficiary's achievements as of the date they 
filed the petition so we will not consider those arguments. 8 C.F.R. § l 03 .2(b )( l ). The Petitioner 
discusses the relationship between a bachelor's in computer science and data science as outlined in the 
credentials evaluation and reiterates that her work experience was achieved in progressively 
responsible positions and that those positions directly relate to the specialty in the offered position. 
It does not appear that the Director employed the correct analysis in their denial decision. First, the 
Director should have offered analysis relating to the credentials evaluation to determine whether it 
satisfies the regulatory requirements. That would include the requirements under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l): 
5 
• Does the author have the authority to grant college credits; 
• Can the author grant those credits in the specialty area based on life or work experiences; 
• Does the author have that authority at an accredited U.S. college or university; and 
• Does that accredited U.S. college or university have a program for granting college credits 
based on life or work experiences? 
We reviewed the documents within the RFE response, and we conclude that each of these elements 
have been satisfied. Next, the Director should have discussed why they decided that the evaluator did 
not demonstrate that the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) were met. The evaluator 
determined that the Beneficiary's foreign education was equivalent to a Bachelor of Science in Applied 
Chemistry from an accredited U.S. institution. He further concluded that her work history was 
progressively responsible and totaled more than three years of experience. The evaluator combined 
the Beneficiary's education and work experience in his determination that she had attained the 
equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor of Science in Data Science from an accredited institution of higher 
learning in the United States. The Director did not offer analysis to support their conclusion that the 
credentials evaluation was insufficient. 
We conclude that the credentials evaluation is sufficient to satisfy the beneficiary qualifications 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)( 4), andthatthe Petitioner has demonstrated the Beneficiary 
is qualified to perform in the offered position. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
6