dismissed H-1B Case: Biofuels

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9581906 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 04, 2020 
The Petitioner, a biofuels producer and developer of renewable chemicals, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "business analyst, strategic" under the H-1B nonirnrnigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established that the proffered position was a specialty occupation. 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. 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 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act, 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 seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a business analyst. The Petitioner provided several 
job descriptions for the proffered position which identified the primary duties and responsibilities of 
the Beneficiary, along with the approximate percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on each 
duty. 1 According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires at least a bachelor's degree in 
economics, finance, marketing, or a related business field, plus one to three years of business proposal 
development and presentation. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 2 
Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its 
equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
A. Degree Requirements 
Preliminarily, we note that the Petitioner's degree requirements are insufficient to qualify under the 
H-1 B program. In general, provided the specialties are closely related, a minimum of a bachelor's or 
higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty 
1 For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the job descriptions; however, we have closely reviewed and considered them. 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
2 
(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. A minimum entry requirement of degrees 
in disparate fields, however, 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. 4 In such a case, the organization must establish that 
the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. 5 The Petitioner has not made this showing. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's requirement of a bachelor's degree in "a related business field" is by itself 
inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. A petitioner must 
demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates 
directly to the position in question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required 
specialized studies and the position, the requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as 
business, without further specification, does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf 
Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988). To prove that a job requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as required by 
section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. As explained above, we 
interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific 
specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. We have consistently stated that, although a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a 
conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam 
Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
The Petitioner's requirements do not satisfy the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-lB 
program. Again, the Petitioner claims that the duties of the proffered position can be performed by an 
individual with a bachelor's degree in economics, finance, marketing, or a related business field. The 
issue here is that it is not readily apparent that these fields of study are closely related. The requirement 
is not just a bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that directly 
relates to the position duties. 6 Absent this evidence, it cannot be found that the particular position 
proffered in this matter has a normal minimum entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, under the Petitioner's own standards. 
B. First Criterion 
We turn next to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), which 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 will consider the information contained 
4 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
5 While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we do not so narrowly interpret these 
provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement 
degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This 
also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing, again, the evidence of record establishes how each acceptable. 
specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 
6 See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
3 
in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 7 
On the labor condition application (LCA) 8 submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Management Analysts" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code 13-1111. Although the 
Handbook states that "[a] bachelor's degree is the typical entry-level requirement for management 
analysts," it also states that "common fields of study include business, management, economics, 
accounting, finance, marketing, psychology, and computer and information science." 9 Based on the 
wide range of degrees the Handbook indicates is acceptable for entry into this occupation, the 
Handbook does not establish that a bachelor's or higher degree in a spec[fic specialty, or its equivalent, 
is normally the minimum requirement for entry into a management analyst position. 
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 2 l 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. However, 
because there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" 
and the position, a minimum entry requirement of degrees in disparate fields, such as accounting and 
psychology, 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. 10 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). The 
Petitioner has not done so here. 
In its response to the RFE, the Petitioner also referenced the DOL's Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET) summary report for "Management Analysts." The summary report provides 
general information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion 
that the position is a specialty occupation. Specifically, the O*NET does not establish that the degree 
must be in any specific specialty. 11 
7 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proofremains on the Petitioner to 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent for entry. 
8 A petitioner submits the LCA to DOL to demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB 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. § 655.731(a). 
9 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Management Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Jul. 28, 2020). 
10 In other words, while the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular "specialty," we do not so nanowly 
interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations if they pennit, as a minimum entry 
requirement, degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties if the Petitioner establishes how each acceptable, 
specific field of study is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 
11 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
4 
The Petitioner also submits an excerpt from the Institute of Management Consultants, which provides 
a brief overview of this occupational category. While acknowledged, we note that this document 
simply states that "a bachelor's degree is sufficient for many entry-level government jobs," and that a 
master's degree is often required within the private industry. However, this document does not state 
that a degree in a specific specialty is required. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the o inion of a professor emeritus of accounting 
and operations management fro .. _,_ ___ ___JUniversity, satisfies the first criterion. I I 
describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position, 
and states that the duties associated with the proffered position require at least a bachelor's degree in 
finance, economics, marketing, or a related business or engineering field. We carefully evaluated □ 
I l's assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined 
his letter is not persuasive. 
First, we observe that~-----~ states that, in addition to reviewing documents provided by 
the Petitioner, he spoke to the Beneficiary's manager and supervisor regarding the requirements of the 
position. Although he restates the list of duties provided by the Petitioner in support of the petition, 
he does not discuss the duties of the proffered position in any substantive detail. Rather, he briefly 
discusses the Petitioner's business operations and concludes that the proffered position is complex and 
specialized. In addition, the record does not include evidence that~-----~has, for example, 
published, conducted research, run surveys, or engaged in an enterprise, pursuit, or employment -
academic or otherwise - regarding the minimum education requirements for the performance of the 
duties of the proffered position. I I references the O*NET summary report for 
management analysts; however, while the summary report provides general information regarding the 
management analysts occupation, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the 
educational requirements for management analyst positions. For example, the management analyst 
occupation is designated as Job Zone Five, a zone for which "most. .. occupations require graduate 
school." However, the O*NET does not specify what field, if any, that the occupation requires the 
degree to be in. 12 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letter from! I is insufficient to 
satisfy the first criterion. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The 
service is not required to accept or may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable."). For the sake of brevity, we will not 
address the other deficiencies within the professor's analyses of the proffered position. 
The Petitioner cites to Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015), and claims that 
it is relevant here. We reviewed the decision; however, the Petitioner has not established that the 
duties and responsibilities, level of judgment, complexity, supervisory duties, independent judgment, 
or amount of supervision in that case are analogous to the position proffered here. 13 There is little 
indication that the positions are similar. 
12 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at 
http://www. oneton I ine. org/he Ip/ on I ine/ svp. 
13 We note that the Director's decision was not appealed to our office. Based on the district comt'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 in our de nova review of the matter. 
5 
The Petitioner asserts that Raj demonstrates that the specific specialty requirement can be satisfied by 
a combination of education and experience. In Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires 
the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The court 
confirmed that this issue is well-settled in case law and with the agency's reasonable interpretation of 
the regulatory framework. In the decision, the court noted 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." The court stated 
that the regulatory provisions do not restrict qualifying occupations to those for which there exists a 
single, specifically tailored and titled degree program; but rather, the statute and regulations contain 
an equivalency provision. 14 
Additionally, the Petitioner cites to Chung Song Ja Corp. v. USCIS, 96 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (W.D. Wash. 
2015), in asserting that qualifying occupations are not restricted to those which have a single, 
specifically tailored and titled degree program. The court in Chung Song Ja Corp states "[ w ]hile 
8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l) does not use the language of 'specific specialty,' users does not 
abuse its discretion in reading this regulation together with 8 e.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii), which defines 'a 
specialty occupation' as one that "requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent." Id. at 1197. The holding in this case is not that any bachelor's degree 
would suffice to deem a particular position a specialty occupation, but one in a specific specialty -
and that the petitioner in that case had satisfied that requirement. As we noted earlier, the Petitioner 
will accept degrees in disparate fields for its proffered position. 
We also note that, 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 Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 
1993). 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. 
Finally, we note the Petitioner's reliance on one of our non-precedent decisions from 1995 where we 
determined that the position of business analyst was a specialty occupation. The Petitioner has furnished 
no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished 
decision. Moreover, this decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind users 
officers in future adjudications. See 8 e.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and 
policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the 
record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. While 8 e.F.R. § 103.3(c) 
provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all users employees in the administration of the 
Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Here, the Petitioner has not provided information from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. The record is insufficient 
to satisfy the criterion under 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
14 We agree with the court that a specialty occupation is one that requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We further note that a petitioner must also demonstrate that the position requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in accordance with section 214(i)(l )(B) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and satisfy one of the four criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
6 
C. 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. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this 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. We generally 
consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree requirement: 
whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional 
association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from 
firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting 
Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to 
inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that an authoritative source reports at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required for the proffered position, and 
we incorporate our previous discussion on this matter. In addition, there are no submissions from the 
industry's professional association indicating that it has made a specialty degree a minimum entry 
requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or 
individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only 
degreed individuals." 
In support of this prong, the Petitioner submitted job advertisements from other organizations in its 
industry. The Petitioner asserts that all the advertisements satisfy the three main elements that the 
degree requirement is common: (1) to the industry, (2) among similar organizations, and (3) in parallel 
positions. When determining whether the Petitioner and other organizations share the same general 
characteristics, such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, 
when pertinent, the size, scope, or scale of operations, expenditures, as well as the level of revenue 
and staffing (to list just a few elements that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner 
to claim that an organization is similar and in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis 
for such an assertion. 
The Director noted deficiencies with most of the job postings. For example, the Director found that 
while most of the postings did not identify a specific specialty in its minimum educational 
requirements, they likewise did not limit the field of study to a particular field but rather allowed for 
a wide variety of fields. For example, the posting by Avenica states "all majors encouraged to apply." 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues several points contesting the Director's determination. 
7 
We find it is unnecessary to weigh in on all the Petitioner's appellate claims under this criterion as 
none of the job postings are for positions that are sufficiently similar to the one offered in the petition. 
The job postings are general and vague, and therefore it is unclear whether the duties identified in the 
advertised positions equate to the duties and functions of the offered position. Additionally, some of 
the job postings appear to be for more senior-level positions than the proffered position as each 
required work experience (for example, the posting by Stax, Inc. requires four to six years of 
experience in addition to a degree, the posting by Trunk Club requires "3+ years of experience in 
analytics," and the posting by Cornejo & Sons requires a minimum of three years of experience). 
While the Petitioner emphasizes that the advertised positions are similar by virtue of the fact that they 
require experience as well as a degree, the Petitioner's experiential requirements are significantly less 
than some of the advertised positions. 
Finally, many of the postings indicate that they will accept a general degree in business, which, as 
previously noted, is a broad field and further undermines the claim that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation. 15 We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that the acceptance of a business 
degree by these other organizations demonstrates that similar organizations impose the same educational 
requirements as those mandated for the proffered position. Again, however, we have consistently stated 
that while a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a 
conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam 
Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence as to how representative these 
particular job advertisements are of the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the 
types of job advertised. As the advertisements are only solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of 
the employers' actual hiring practices. 16 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 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 prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(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 
15 Even if all of the job postings indicated that a requirement of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is common to 
the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations (which they do not), the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the advertisements with regard to determining the common 
educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice 
of Social Research 186-228 (1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the advertisements were randomly 
selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the sampling unit were sufficiently 
large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process [of probability sampling]" and 
that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the basis for estimates of population 
parameters and estimates of error"). 
16 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 is not necessary. That is, not every deficit of every 
job posting has been addressed. 
8 
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. However, the Petitioner 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 asserts that the Director erroneously relied on the Petitioner's classification of the 
position at a Level I wage level on the LCA when determining whether the proffered position was a 
specialty occupation under this criterion. According to guidance by DOL, Level I wage rates are 
assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have only a basic understanding of the 
occupation, and such employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of 
judgment. While we agree with the Petitioner's assertion that wage levels do not determine whether 
a position is a specialty occupation, the record as constituted does not demonstrate that the proffered 
position is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by an individual with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the pos1t10n, and references her 
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. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
D. 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 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 
9 
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 submitted the resumes for three individuals it claims are employed in the same or similar 
positions to the one proffered here. Upon review, we note that the positions held by these individuals 
are titled "business analyst," "senior business analyst," and "strategic analyst." The resumes are not 
supported by additional documentary evidence such as evidence of the employment of these 
individuals with the Petitioner or their academic credentials. 17 Nevertheless, it is unclear from the 
profiles whether each individual is employed in the same position as that proffered to the Beneficiary, 
as two of the three job titles of the individuals differ from that of the proffered position, and the brief 
overview of their positions is vague. The Petitioner did not provide the job duties and responsibilities 
of the employees that it claims serve in positions that are the same as the proffered position, nor did 
the Petitioner provide any information regarding the complexity of the job duties, supervisory duties 
(if any), independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision received. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established that the duties and responsibilities of these individuals are the same as 
the Beneficiary's in the proffered position. 
Without more, 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 position. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
E. 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. On appeal, the Petitioner does not address or contest the Director's finding under this 
criterion. 
Upon review, we conclude that relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently 
developed by the Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. We note the Petitioner's submission 
of a detailed overview of the proffered position, as well as an explanation of its business operations 
and the manner in which the Beneficiary's duties will relate to those operations. However, while the 
evidence submitted demonstrates that the position may require that the Beneficiary possess some skills 
and technical knowledge in order to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
how these tasks require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. The record does not include sufficient 
probative evidence that the duties require more than technical proficiency in the field. 
17 While each profile lists their claimed academic credentials, no corroborating documentation such as diplomas or 
transcripts was submitted. 
10 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence to support this claim. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
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. 
11