dismissed H-1B Case: Aerospace Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8745589 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WLY 10, 2020 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in the development of flying cars, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as an international operations coordinator , 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 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the evidence ofrecord 
does not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. On appeal , the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in the decision . 
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. See 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. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) , defines the term "specialty occupation " as an 
occupation that requires : 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge , and 
(B) 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition , but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will perform the services of an international operations 
coordinator. The record's labor condition application (LCA) was certified for a position falling within 
the Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code and category 15-1199, "Computer Occupations -
All Other." 1 
In the response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner described the Beneficiary's duties as 
follows: 
• Negotiate with project stakeholders and Chinese suppliers to secure resources or 
materials. 30% 
• Confer with China Program Manager and the China engineering, manufacturing 
and purchasing teams to identify China's open issues and risks and resolve them 
through collaborations with US team. 20% 
• Schedule and facilitate in-person and virtual meetings with team members to ensure 
efficiency for U.S. - China project management conference calls. 20% 
• Monitor project milestones and deliverables, ensuring adherence to budget, 
schedule, and scope. 15% 
1 1 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker 
the higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage 
paid by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
2 
• Collaborate with the US engineering and operations teams to record US 
prototyping, manufacturing, and operating risks, issues and mitigation plans and 
communicate them to the China team. 15% 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position reqmres a bachelor's degree m materials 
engineering, manufacturing or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Specifically, the record 
does not include sufficient consistent, probative evidence establishing that the job duties require an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 
A First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide 
variety of occupations that it addresses. 2 The Petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA as 
a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1199 "Computer Occupations, All Other" 
occupation. In response to the Director's RFE the Petitioner asserted that the duties of the proffered 
position are consistent with the duties of the "Information Technology Project Managers" occupation, 
SOC code 15-1199.09. 
The Handbook is a career resource offering information on hundreds of occupations. However, there are 
occupational categories which the Handbook does not cover in detail, and instead provides only summary 
data. 3 The subchapter of the Handbook titled "Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail" states, in 
relevant part, that the "[t]ypical entry-level education" for "Information Technology Project Managers" 
is a "Bachelor's degree," without indicating that the bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty.4 
Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing that these positions comprise an occupational group 
for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. 
We have also reviewed the DOL's O*NET summary report for "Information Technology Project 
Managers."5 The summary report provides general information regarding the occupation. For example, 
the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating cited within O*NET's Job Zone Four rating 
designates this occupation as 7 < 8. An SVP rating of 7 to less than("<") 8 indicates that the occupation 
2 The Handbook may be accessed at https://www.bls.gov/ooh. 
3 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Jul. 9, 2020). 
4 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
5 See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l l 99.09 (last visited Jul. 9, 2020). 
3 
requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. 6 While the SVP rating indicates the total 
number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, it is important to note that it 
does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, formal education, and experience -
and it does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 7 We have 
considered the Petitioner's reference to the O*NET's summary report of the educational requirements of 
"respondents" and its claim that 100 percent of respondents report a bachelor's degree is required. 8 
However, the respondents' positions within this occupation are not distinguished by career level (e.g., 
entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph in the summary report does not indicate that 
the "education level" for the respondents must be in a specific specialty. The O*NET summary report 
for this occupation does not establish the duties of the Petitioner's particular position would normally 
require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner cites to RELX, Inc. v. Baran to support its argument that a position may be specialized 
even when the position permits more than one specific specialty for entry into the position. 9 As the 
foregoing discussion demonstrates, while we agree that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a 
degree in a single specific specialty, we do not agree with the analytical framework set forth by the 
RELXcourt. 
In RELX, the court did not address the statutory and regulatory provisions as they pertain to the 
requirement that the bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, be in a spec[fic specialty. To avoid restricting 
the qualifying occupations to those for which a single, specific specialty exists, the court did not 
consider the requirement for specialization and overlooked that neither the Handbook nor O*NET 
stated that the referenced bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. In overlooking this relevant 
detail, the court disposed of the precedential authority created by Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff and 
continued to do so when it examined the evidence presented for the other criteria. 10 
We also disagree with the court's statement that "[ the Petitioner] did not just make a general reference 
to O*NET. Rather, [the Petitioner] stated that the Data Analyst position is aligned with the DOL's 
"Business Intelligence Analyst" position for which there is a detailed description that is directly 
relevant to the inquiry of whether the position is specialized." 11 While we agree that O*NET is 
relevant, the court's treatment of O*NET as dispositive simply because the proffered position aligned 
with the occupational category disregards the spec[fic specialty analysis that underpins Royal Siam 
Corp. The RELX court further stated that "[s]ince the [Handbook] indeed does provide specific 
detailed information regarding educational requirements for the computer operations category, and the 
detailed information states most of the occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, the agency's 
rationale was both factually inaccurate and not supported by the record." 12 Here, again the court did 
6 See id. 
7 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
8 The O*NET summary report indicates that 38 percent of the respondents had a bachelor's degree, 24 percent an 
associate's degree, and 19 percent a post-baccalaureate certificate. The wide variance in the type of degree, within the 
same year, undennines any reliance on these types of surveys to establish a nonnal minimum requirement of even a general 
bachelor's degree. See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15- l l 99.09 (last visited Jul. 9, 2020). 
9 RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2020). 
10 Royal Siam Cmp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a specific specialty" 
as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a pmticular position"). 
11 RELX, Inc., 397 F.Supp.3d at 54. 
12 Id. 
4 
not undertake the proper inquiry regarding the specific educational requirements of the position and 
instead regards a general requirement for a bachelor's degree as sufficient to discharge the petitioner's 
burden. 
Because the Handbook and O*NET do not describe the normal minimum educational requirements 
with sufficient specificity to establish that the positions falling within the occupational category are 
specialized, we disagree with the court's reliance on these sources as establishing the requisite 
eligibility. Instead, we believe that absent support from the Handbook and O*NET, the court should 
have analyzed whether the petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated that its particular position was one 
for which a bachelor's degree would normally be required and whether the stated field(s) of study 
directly related to the performance of the duties. 13 In other words, though we agree with the RELX 
court that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty, this 
agreement is predicated upon the fields of study being closely related to the duties of the position and 
the record reflecting evidence sufficient to establish such relation. 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since there 
must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the 
position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, such as philosophy 
and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty 
( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 14 For the foregoing reasons, we cannot agree with the 
reasoning contained in the RELX decision and therefore conclude that the Petitioner's reliance upon 
the case does not support its eligibility. 15 
On appeal the Petitioner cites to Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015) and 
Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012), among other cases, to 
support its claim that the first regulatory criterion does not preclude the finding of a specialty 
occupation position when multiple disciplines may be permitted. We are not persuaded. Rather, the 
court in Raj specifically stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Raj, 85 F. Supp.3d at 1246. The court 
confirmed that this issue is well-settled in case law and within the agency's reasonable interpretation 
of the legal framework. Id. The court also observed that "permitting an occupation to qualify simply 
by requiring a generalized bachelor degree would run contrary to congressional intent to provide a 
visa program for specialized, as opposed to merely educated, workers." Id. 
13 Though the RELX court briefly discusses the duties of the position, it did not engage in analysis of whether the duties 
actually required the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment 
of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation. Rather, after 
disposing of the authority set forth in Royal Siam Corp., the court accepted the petitioner's stated standards concerning its 
position. See generan)," Defensor V. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384,387. 
14 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
15 We further note that the Director's decision in RELXwas not appealed to us. Based on the district court's findings and 
description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very 
well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision to address many of the concerns articulated by the 
district court if they could not have been remedied by us in our de nova review of the matter. 
5 
We agree with the general proposition that "[ t ]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important." Residential Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d at 997 ( citing Tapis, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 175-76). 
Moreover, we generally agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job responsibilities 
of a proffered position are a combination of a general bachelor's degree and specialized experience 
such that the standards at both section 214(i)(l )(A) and (B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the 
proffered position may qualify as a specialty occupation. However, these general propositions are not 
applicable here. 
Instead, they are applicable in circumstances where (1) a specific degree is not available in a particular 
field, and (2) the beneficiary has obtained the equivalence to that specific degree through a 
combination of general education and specialized experience. The Petitioner does not demonstrate 
that the same circumstances existed here, e.g., that a degree in finance does not exist or is not typically 
available, or that a liberal arts degree is acceptable only under certain circumstances. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are sufficiently analogous to those in Raj and Residential Finance, all of which concerned marketing­
related, not finance-related, occupations. 16 And in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the 
case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United 
States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 719-
20. Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration 
when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted an opinion letter authored byl I a Professor and Associate 
Dean of Research at~-----~University. In his letter, the professor (1) described the 
credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) described 
aspects of the previously discussed job duties proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) stated that these 
duties require at least a bachelor's degree in materials engineering, manufacturing or a related 
technical field. We carefully evaluated the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition but 
find them insufficient. 
The professor stated that he reviewed documentation provided by the Petitioner and had a phone 
conversation with the Petitioner's vice president and general manager. He quoted the duties provided 
in the Petitioner's RFE response but did not provide sufficient analysis of the requirements of the 
proffered position within the context of the Petitioner's on-going projects. For example, the professor 
asserted that "it is clear that the duties related to technical communications with regards to 
manufacturing and assemble processes of carbon fiber and light weight materials such as titanium; all 
of which are required in this position, are complex so that they require specialized knowledge of 
engineering fundamentals, materials science, vehicle dynamics and aerodynamics." However, the 
professor's analysis falls short of providing a meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will do 
in the proffered position and how those duties require the theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge. While we appreciate the professor's discussion of the proffered 
position, his conclusory statements do not sufficiently articulate how he was able to adequately assess 
16 It is important to note that the district judge's decision in Residential Finance appears to have been based largely on the 
many factual errors made by the service center in its decision denying the petition. See, e.g., 839 F. Supp. 2d at 996-97. 
6 
the nature of the position and appropriately determine the educational requirements of the position 
based upon the general duties provided by the Petitioner. 
The professor also stated that the duties of the proffered position is "contained within the duties and 
requirements as outline in O*NET Outline for the IT Project Manager (15-1199.09) occupation." 17 
I I also stated that the O*NET survey found that 84% of these positions require a Bachelor's 
degree but as noted above, the O*NET survey for the position of IT Project Manager indicated that 
38% of respondents have a bachelor's degree. Thus, it is not clear the source and information the 
author utilized in this letter. Further,! ldid not provide a meaningful discussion and analysis 
of the position to appropriately determine the educational requirements of the position. The 
professor's conclusory statements are insufficient to demonstrate that proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. I I asserts a general industry educational standard for international 
operations coordinator positions without referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis 
for the pronouncement. Likewise, he does not provide a substantive, analytical basis for his opinion 
and ultimate conclusion. Accordingly, the very fact that he attributes a degree requirement to such a 
generalized treatment of the proffered position undermines the credibility of his opinion. 
In summary, and for each and all the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion letter 
rendered b~ I is not sufficient to establish the proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
The conclusion reached byl I lacks the requisite specificity and detail and is not supported 
by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which he reached such conclusion. 
There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support the OP.inion and the opinion is not in 
accord with other information in the record. Therefore, the letter froml ldoes not establish 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However, 
where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not 
required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). As a reasonable exercise of our discretion we discount the advisory opinion 
letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
The record does not include sufficient documentation from a probative source to establish the normal 
minimum requirement for entry into this particular occupation. The Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree .... " 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong concentrates on 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
17 The Department of Labor's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) can be accessed at http://www.onetonline.org. 
7 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy the first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent) 
is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide requirement for at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the 
previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional 
association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. 
The Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," and the 
announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's 
industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that 
threshold. Upon review of the documents, we conclude that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted two job postings to demonstrate that a degree in a specific specialty 
is a common requirement of the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. We will first 
consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel positions." The job 
advertisements do not describe the duties with sufficient detail so that we might make a meaningful 
comparison of them to the duties of the proffered position. A few general bullet points, such as those 
found in the Tesla and Lucid ads, do not sufficiently establish that the primary duties and responsibilities 
of the advertised positions are the same or similar to the proffered position. 
The positions are for Technical program managers and we do not know if they perform similar duties. 
For example, the Lucid posting requires "at least 5+ years of experience in engineering and/or 
manufacturing." Thus, it appears that this position is more senior than the proffered position. The 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised 
positions parallel those of the proffered position. 
Nor does the record contain documentary evidence sufficient to establish that these job vacancy 
announcements were placed by companies that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's industry and (2) 
are also "similar" to the Petitioner. When determining whether the employer posting a job listing and the 
Petitioner share the same general characteristics, factors to be considered may include information 
regarding the nature or type of organization and, when pertinent, the particular scope of operations, as 
well as the level of revenue and staffing. On appeal, the Petitioner states that similar "should be defined 
reasonably broadly to include other aerospace and aviation engineering companies and not only a 
particular type of flying car, since the underlying concepts for aerospace and aviation manufacturing and 
engineering at these companies is the same." Though the Petitioner contends that these employers are 
similar to it, the brief overviews in the announcements themselves do not sufficiently establish this claim. 
8 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. 18 As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the 
regulations, further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings, 
articles, and reports is not necessary. That is, not every deficit of every piece of evidence has been 
addressed. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In support of its assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, the Petitioner 
described the proffered position and its business operations. Although the Petitioner described the 
duties of the position in detail, it has not demonstrated how the duties of the proffered position require 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such that a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not submit information relevant to 
a detailed course of study leading to a specialty degree and establish how such a curriculum would be 
necessary to perform the duties it believes are so complex and unique. While some related courses 
may be beneficial, or even required, in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated how an established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the proffered position's duties. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect of the duties 
of the position. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Evidence provided 
18 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the particular 
advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for 
hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
9 
in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's 
past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who previously held 
the position. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference 
for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed 
self-imposed requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the 
United States to perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 
requirement. Id. Evidence provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, 
documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information 
regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner provided a list of employees in similar positions. The list of employees are all engineer 
positions such as software engineer, senior electric power systems engineer, engineering manager, and 
senior system engineer, to name a few. The Petitioner stated that "all of the engineers have earned at least 
a bachelor's degree in a related engineering field." However, it is not clear if these engineering positions 
are similar to the proffered position. The engineering positions include creating, building, and 
manufacturing systems. However, the proffered position does not appear to include duties of writing and 
developing systems. Instead, it is a coordinator position where the position requires scheduling and 
meetings, monitor project milestones, negotiate, and, manage projects. It is not clear that the positions 
are similar. 
The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of 
the specific duties is so specialized 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. 
The Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish this criterion. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10