Recently, California Service Center denied a immigrant petition of a case of H-1B The petitioner was incorporated in 1997 in the State of Caniformia. It is engaged in legal services. Lets have a look at what reasons made USCIS deny it and what factors makes AAO withdraw such decision.

DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeaL The appeal will be sustained. The petition will be approved.
The petitioner on the Form l-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, describes its business as a "Law Practice." The petitioner states that it was established in 1997, currently employs 8 personnel in the United States, and reported a gross annual income of approximately $ when the petition was filed. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). •
The director denied the petition, determining that the petitioner: (1) had not established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation; and (2) had not established the beneficiary's eligibility to perform the duties of a specialty occupation.

Upon review of the entire record, we find that the petitioner has overcome the director's grounds for denying this petition. The AA.O conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). The totality of the evidence presented in this particular record of proceeding establishes that the duties of the proffered position are so complex or unique that their performance can only be performed by an individual with a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The petitioner has also established that !he position proffered here otherwise meets the requirements of a specialty occupation as that term is defined by section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(1), and 8
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). In addition, we have reviewed the qualifications of the beneficiary and find sufficient evidence that he is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position.

In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's bmden to establish eligibility for the im..migration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The petitioner has sustained that burden.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained. The director's January 14, 2013 decision is withdrawn, and the petition is approved.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF DENIED I-129 PETITION -15¬

31.3 Section (h). users failed to follow this guidance when it refused to recognize Dr. evaluation based on a combination ofthe beneficiary's work and educational background.
Professor is head of the University's foreign credentia evaluation service and has supplied over 2000 expert opinions on educational credentials. Se Exh. 1. His evaluation was accompanied by a letter from the lJniversit confinning the following: "(I) That University has a policy of awardin experiential leaming credits for professional work experience; (2) That professors, includin~ Professor evaluate such credentials and detennine whether University is to award credit based on a student's professional experience; and (3) That Professo~
, an University faculty member since 2007, is highly proficient an~ knowledgeable in this process." See Exh. 1. This same letter confirms that Professor holds a Doctorate in Education, but has authorization to issue the above-mentioned equivalenc evaluations "in all academic fields as a cross-disciplinary faculty member." Id.
Similarly, USCIS erred when it refused to consider the combination evaluation fro1
possesses similar qualifications, and has trained with granting college-level credit based on educational background and experience combined. Exh. 2. USCIS ignored a letter included with Ms. ,:'s equivalency which confinns that sh holds a professorship at U and that she is "permitted to evaluate students on behalf of th university ... and issue college credit for work experience in all fields offered at the University.' See Exh. 2. Also included with her equivalency evaluations is proof that Mr. institute a university program to grant college-level credit for experiential learning following th users 3-for-1 rule. Id. Her evaluation for the beneficiary specifically states that she used the 3¬for-1 rule pursuant to 8 eFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) to reach her fmdings. She explains:
"For every three years of relevant and comparable work experiences, we granted up to one year of university study, or 12 years of work experience . . . is considered to be equivalent to a US Regionally Accredited Bachelor's degree ... The resume listings and the employment verification letters attest a progressively more responsible experience with increasingly complex duties including in the field of forensic (alcohol) criminology for a total of 17 years." Id.
petitioner's statements about the requirement that the individual will independently review th work product of other professionals. users also ignored evidence that the individual in thi position must be qualified as an expe1i in court to testify about his or her findings.
B. THE BENEFICIARY'S THREE YEAR DEGREE AND MAl\TY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ARE EQUAL TO THAT OF A FOUR YEAR DEGREE IN CRIMil~OLOGY OR A RELATED FIELD.
1. The Regulatory Requirements for Degree Equivalency for Specialty Occupatio \Vorkers.
To qualify for an H-lB, a beneficiary must meet one of the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C). Namely, the beneficiary must: (1) Hold a US bachelor's or higher; (2) Hol a foreign degree detennined to be equivalent to a US bachelor's degree or higher required by th specialty occupation; (3) Hold an unrestricted State license, registration or ce1iification whic authmizes him or her to fully practice the specialty occupation; or (4) Have education specialized training, and/or progressively responsible experience that is equivalent to completio of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and hav recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions directl related to the specialty. Here, the petitioner claims only that the beneficiary has satisfied the las requirement, i.e., that the benet1ciary's three-year degree and many years o progressive work experience are equivalent to at least a four-year US bachelor's degree i criminology or a related field.
The regulations outline how a beneficiary's work history and educational background c be found equivalent to a US bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) states that th equivalence to completion of a United States bachelor's degree or higher degree "shall mem achievement of a level of knowledge, competence, and practice in the specialty occupation tha has been detennined to be equal to that of an individual who has a baccalaureate or higher degre in the specialty and shall be detennined 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;
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF DENIED I-129 PETITION -14¬

Science degree with major in forensic (alcohol) criminology, from a university in the United States of America." See Exh 1 and RFE Response, Exh. L. :ound the following:
"In reviewing s academic history and progressive work experience, it is eviden that has satisfied the requirements that are substantially similar to those of a accredited institution of higher education in the United States." See Exh. 2; and RFE Response, Exh. K.
In light of the above, it is clear that and are qualified to evaluate the beneficiary's academic credentials and work experience. US CIS' decision to dis car their expertise and their evaluation is clear enor and contradicts a plain reading of th
regulations.
3. By approving an H-lB petition for this beneficiary in 2009, the Service made determination that the beneficiary's degree and work experience equates to a four year degree in criminology, thus satisfying 8 CFR § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5).
In2009, the USCIS Vennont Service Center ("VSC") approved an H-lB petition for thi beneficiary filed for a similar position and relying on the same combination of educationa background and work experience. See Exh. 3. Approximately three years later, in early 2013, the USCIS California Service Center ("CSC") found that the beneficiary's educationa
background cannot qualify him for an H-lB. The CSC itself acknowledges that the beneficiar can establish that his degree and experience shall be found equivalent to a US bachelor's degre if the Service detennines that the degree and experience are equivalent. CSC, however, failed to acknowledge in its denial that in 2009, the VSC already found the beneficiary's education an work experience sufficient to satisfy the regulatory requirements. It is an abuse of discretion fo the Service to make a finding of equivalency in one filing and then contradict its own findin without explanation in a subsequent filing.
In its January 14, 2013 decision, USCIS concluded that it was unable to undergo its ow de novo review of the beneficiary's educational background and experience because nothin more than the beneficiary's resume was provided. See January 14, 2013 Notice of Decision, pages 14 and 15. But as discussed above, the record is replete with evidence the US CIS ignored, including the following: (1) A detailed resun1e documenting many years ofprogressiv expe1ience in the field; (2) Course-by-course transcripts from all university programs; (3) AI

The petitioner filed support letters from industry expe1is verifying that the beneficiary is a recognized expert in the field. Dr. a professor of Neurology and Phannac who has been "often called upon to review a purported expert's professional experience in thi field," stated in one letter that he "can personally attest to [the beneficiary's] knowledge an expertise as a Forensic Alcohol Criminalist." Basing his opinion on Mr. 's CV and professional knowledge his work, Dr. explained:

"I work with and cross-examine many highly competent scientists, both govemment and private sector. Mr. equals or surpasses their knowledge of evidentiary breath testing science and equipment." See RFE Response, Exh. 0.2.
These support letters from industry experts, fonner employers, and criminal defens attomeys speak for themselves. USCIS abused its discretion in overlooking substantial recor evidence and misapplying the regulations. Its previous finding that the beneficiary's education i equivalent to a US bachelor's in criminology should stand.
V. Conclusion
Based on the aforementioned evidence and infonnation, the petitioner clearly establishe that the beneficiary qualifies to perforn1 services in a specialty occupation based on combination of education, specialized training and progressively responsible experience that i equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree.

(A) theoretical and practical application of a body ofhighly specialized knowledge, and

(B) attainment ofa bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)• as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.

Section 214(i)(2) of the Act outlines the fundamental requirements to qualify to perform a specialty occupation:

(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 (l)(B) for the occupation, or (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.

Pursuant to Title 8, Code ofFederal Regulations ("8 C.F.R.") 214.2(h)(4) (ili)(C) the beneficiary must meet one of the following criteria:

(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 certificate 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 ~quivalent to completion ofa United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty occupation, and have recognition ofexpertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positio~directly related to 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. 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. For equivalence to an advanced (or Masters) degree, the alien must have a baccalaureate degree followed by at least five years of experience in the specialty. If required by a specialty, the alien must hold a Doctorate degree or its foreign equivalent. 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;

(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.

Further, 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ti) defmes a "recognized authority" as follows:
...a person or an organization with expertise in a particular field, special skills or
knowledge in that field, and the expertise to render the type of opinion requested. Such an
opinion must state:
( 1) 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.