dismissed H-1B Case: Business Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 05, 2024 In Re: 31260719 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant 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-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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner's proffered position was an occupation for which the performance of duties required 
the application of a theoretical and practical body of specialized knowledge under 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act, 
8 U .S.C. § 1184(1)(1), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4) . The matter is now before us on 
appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
The Petitioner filed its petition seeking to employ the Beneficiary as a business data analyst and 
submitted a labor condition application (LCA) certified for a position in the "Operations Research 
Analyst" occupational category. The Director may request additional evidence when determining 
eligibility for the requested benefit. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8). In addition, a petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing the petition and must continue to be eligible through adjudication. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Upon review of the record in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The record does not sufficiently establish the 
substantive nature of the proffered position, which precludes us from determining that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation under sections 101 (a)(l 5)(H)(i)(b ), 214(i)(l) of the Act, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A). The record contains material 
inconsistencies in documents and materials submitted with the petition, RFE, and appeal. 
A. Legal Framework 
The Act at Section 214(i)(l), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: (A) the 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) adds a non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor to the 
statutory definition. And the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires that the proffered 
position must also meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1. 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. 
The statute and regulations must be read together to make sure the proffered position meets the 
definition of a specialty occupation. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) 
(holding that construction of language which takes into account the design of the statue as a whole is 
preferred); see also COIT Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561 
(1989); Matter of W-F-, 21 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1996). Considering the statute and the regulations 
separately could lead to scenarios where a petitioner satisfies a regulatory factor but not the definition 
of specialty occupation contained in the statute. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th 
Cir. 2000). The regulatory criteria read together with the statute gives effect to the statutory intent. 
See Temporary Alien Workers Seeking Classification Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
So, we construe the term "degree" in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any baccalaureate 
or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position 
supporting the statutory definition of specialty occupation. 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"). USCIS' application of 
this standard has resulted in the orderly approval of H-1B petitions for engineers, certified public 
accountants, information technology professionals, and other occupations commensurate with what 
Congress intended when it created the H-1B category. 
And job title or broad occupational category alone does not determine whether a particular job is a 
specialty occupation under the regulations and statute. The nature of a petitioner's business operations 
along with the specific duties of the proffered job are also considered. We must evaluate the 
2 
employment of the individual and determine whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
See Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. So, a petitioner's self-imposed requirements are not as critical as whether 
the nature of the position the petitioner offers requires the application of a theoretical and practical 
body of knowledge gained after earning the required baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific 
specialty required to accomplish the duties of the job. 
B. Analysis 
We are unable to ascertain the position's substantive nature due to the Petitioner's discordant and 
inconsistent expressions of what duties they expect the Beneficiary to perform in the proffered 
specialty occupation. And if we cannot ascertain the position's actual, substantive nature, then we 
cannot determine whether it satisfies at least one of the specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). We therefore agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
established that the position is a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner, founded in 2016, is a limited liability company in the business of "reverse logistics 
lifecycle products," and it claims to employ 31 people. As stated above, the Petitioner seeks to employ 
the Beneficiary as a business data analyst. The petition was accompanied by a LCA certified for work 
at the Petitioner's place of business in ITexas. The Petitioner intended to employ the 
Beneficiary in the proffered position from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2026. 
The Petitioner did not identify the minimum requirements for entry into its business data analyst 
position when it initially filed the underlying petition. So, the Director issued a request for evidence 
(RFE) regarding the Petitioner's education and/or experience requirement and duties of the proffered 
job, as well as evidence whether the Petitioner could demonstrate its proffered job met at least one of 
the specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). In response to 
the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted copies of the Beneficiary's United States and international 
(Indian) educational credentials, copies of internet advertisements ofjob opportunities purportedly for 
parallel positions at similar employers, a document issued by I I describing 
"organizational changes" for ______ effective June 1, 2023, resumes and United States 
as well as international educational credentials and paystubs related to other individuals the Petitioner 
employed in the position of business data analyst, a document titled "Business Data Analyst" 
purportedly describing the Petitioner's proffered job, a document containing "[a] more detailed job 
description explaining the job duties [the Beneficiary] performs," a list of master's level courses the 
Beneficiary participated in during their graduate studies, and materials ostensibly submitted as 
examples of a business data analyst's work product. 1 
To compensate for initially omitting the position's entry requirements, the Petitioner submitted two 
internally inconsistent documents in response to the Director's RFE. The document titled "Business 
Data Analyst" stated the minimum requirement for entry to the business data analyst position was "[a] 
bachelor's or a master's degree in information technology, computer science, Mathematics, 
Operations Research or Supply Chain management or information management or Engineering or a 
related field." This is confusing because there is a full graduate level difference in studies between 
bachelor's and master's level education. They are not equivalent credentials. And the "more detailed 
1 Whilst we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
job description explaining the job duties [the Beneficiary] performs" listed only master's degree level 
courses required to perform the business data analyst's job duties. So, the minimum requirements of 
the Petitioner's proffered business data analyst job are not consistently or reliably expressed such that 
we can conclude with specificity what the minimum requirements for entry into the Petitioner's 
proffered position actually are. 
Moreover, there is another inconsistency in the expression of the actual job duties in the record which 
materially relates to the nature of the proffered position. The document titled "Business Data Analyst" 
stated the Beneficiary was anticipated to "[ w ]ork with management" and "manage delivery" or even 
"full delivery" of products and services throughout a "lifecycle." And the Petitioner submitted a 
document issued by I I describing "organizational changes" for ______ 
effective June 1, 2023. This document does not list any subordinates reporting to the Beneficiary. But 
the "more detailed job description explaining the job duties [the Beneficiary] performs" described that 
the Beneficiary would "manage development and QA testing teams" and [ c ]ommunicate with 
development teams" to "ensure completion as expected." The record does not adequately clarify 
whether these duties managing "teams" contained in the "more detailed job description" are product 
management related or people management related. Or in other words, we are not able to confidently 
determine whether the role of the business data analyst is functional with respect to lifecycle product 
delivery or has a more active role in managing the "teams" of people who will perform the function. 
This ambiguity has considerable ramifications to our comprehension of the nature and scope of the 
Petitioner's proffered position because it materially changes a key component of the business data 
analyst job description. We are unable to determine the substantive specialty occupation nature of the 
Petitioner's proffered business data analyst position as a result. 
Our evaluation of the nature of the Petitioner's proffered job and its nature as a specialty occupation 
is considerably compromised due to the Petitioner alternating expressions of the nature and substance 
of the duties of their proffered occupation. If the Petitioner cannot credibly and consistently articulate 
what specific duties their employees will perform, then we do not have a sufficiently reliable job 
description such that we can determine if the proffered job meets the legal requirements of a specialty 
occupation. 
We are unable to assess, categorize, and comprehend the Petitioner's business and proffered job due 
to the Petitioner's inconsistencies. And we are therefore unable to ascertain the proffered position's 
substantive nature due to the deficiencies outlined above. And since we cannot determine its 
substantive nature, we cannot conclude whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation under 
any of the criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). The Petitioner's inconsistent 
expressions described above obscure whether the proffered job is a specialty occupation because they 
do not permit us to evaluate how or in what form the Petitioner cultivates an environment supporting 
a specialty occupation position. So, the Petitioner has not overcome this ground of the Director's 
decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
It is the Petitioner's burden to provide material, relevant, and probative evidence 
regarding the nature 
of its proffered position. The Petitioner has not met their burden for the reasons set forth above. This 
appeal must be dismissed. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5