dismissed H-1B Case: Business Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9683693 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, an online insurance management platform, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "business intelligence analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as 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 l&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 stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as a "business intelligence analyst" and 
that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in mathematics, physics, engineering, or similar quantitative 
field is required for entry into the position. The Petitioner provided multiple descriptions of the duties 
of the proffered position, and while we will not list each duty here, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 
Specifically, the record does not establish 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 will consider the information contained in the U.S. Department 
of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) regarding the duties and educational 
1 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 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 2 The Petitioner designated the proffered 
position on the labor condition application (LCA) as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 
15-1199 "Computer Occupations, All Other" occupation. The Petitioner asserted that the duties of the 
proffered position are consistent with the duties of the "Business Intelligence Analysts" subcategory 
corresponding to SOC code 15-1199.08. 
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 a variety of occupations within the category of 
"[ c ]omputer and mathematical occupations" 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 the normal minimum requirement for entry 
is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
The Petitioner referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for 
"Business Intelligence Analysts" - SOC code 15-1199.08 in support of this criterion. The O*NET 
Summary Report provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support the 
Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for the occupation. For example, the Job 
Zone Four designation indicates that most, but some do not, require a four-year bachelor's degree. It 
does not specify the specific field of study, if any, from which the degree must come. The occupation's 
Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of 7 < 8 is even less persuasive. An SVP rating of 7 
to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" 
of training. 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, experience, and formal education which, by definition, includes high school 
education and commercial or shop training. 5 The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. 
Further, the Petitioner asserts that O*NET indicates that most of the positions for Business Intelligence 
Analysts require at least a bachelor's degree." 6 Although the summary report provides the educational 
requirements of "respondents," it does not account for 100% of the "respondents." Moreover, those 
2 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 proof remains 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. 
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 Sept. 18, 2020). Here. 
the Handbook does not provide specific information for various occupations which might be classified within the occupational 
category. 
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 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
6 We are unable to verify the Petitioner's assertion that "90%" of the positions require at least a bachelor's degree. A 
review of the education section of the summary report, which surveys "respondents," reveals that 58% of "respondents" 
report having a bachelor's degree, and 29% of "respondents" report having a master's degree, which would total 87%. 
3 
survey results were based on a relatively small sample size: according to O*NET, that statistic was 
compiled based on 24 responses to a survey. 7 Additionally, the respondents' positions within the 
occupation are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Furthermore, 
the graph in the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be 
in a specific specialty. For all of these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a 
specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner submits a position evaluation prepared by Professor Emeritus of the 
~ment of Computer and Information Services a~ I University I I 
L__l I I concludes that a bachelor's degree in mathematics, physics, engineering, or a 
related quantitative field is a normal minimum requirement for entry into the proffered position. 8 D I I, however, does not articulate or offer evidence to support his conclusion that "after examining 
the responsibilities of the Business Intelligence Analyst position in detail, it becomes apparent that a 
minimum of a Bachelor's Degree in Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, or a similar quantitative field 
or the equivalent" 9 is needed to perform the duties of the position. While he comments on the types 
of courses an individual would study when pursuing degrees in mathematics, physics or engineering, 
and attempts to equate the knowledge obtained by study such courses to the requirements of the 
proffered position, it remains unclear, for example, how a physics degree would qualify an individual 
to "monitor market data sources" and "write SQL inquiries to monitor company reporting." Upon 
review,! !does not present an analysis or foundation for his opinion. He does not refer to 
other methods that do not include a specialty bachelor's degree that would also prepare an individual 
to enter this occupation or the Petitioner's particular position. He does not support his conclusion with 
the results of formal surveys, research, statistics, or other objective quantifying information to 
substantiate his opinion. Further,! lrelies on the Handbook and the O*NET reports as 
supportive of his conclusions; however, as noted above, we determined that these sources indicate that 
this particular occupation does not normally require a bachelor's degree in a specific discipline, or its 
equivalent. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 10 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. 11 Based on the lack of analysis and lack 
of independent sources substantiatingj Is conclusion, we do not assign any probative value 
to his opinion regarding this criterion. 
The Petitioner cites to RELX Inc. v. Baran, 397 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2019), to support its 
argument that a position may be specialized even when the position permits more than one specific 
specialty for entry into it. As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, while we agree that the bachelor's 
7 Employment & Training Administration, Dep't of Labor, Occupational Information Network, O*NET Resource Center, 
O*NET 24.2 Database, Education, Training, and Experience ( click desired download format), available at 
https://www.onetcenter.org/dictionary/24.2/excel/education _training_ experience.html (last visited Sept. 18, 2020). 
8 We note that! ts opinion states the identical minimum educational requirements imposed by the Petitioner, 
without regard for other potentially qualifying degrees or avenues through which an individual may become qualified to 
perform the duties of such a position. 
9 I I repeats the general statement of duties provided by the Petitioner in its initial letter of support. 
10 Matter of Caron Int'/, Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
11 Id. 
4 
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 RELX court. 
The RELX court concluded that "if the pos1t10n requires the beneficiary to apply practical and 
theoretical specialized knowledge and a higher education degree[,] it meets the requirements" of the 
definition of the term "specialty occupation." RELX, 397 F. Supp. 3d at 55. However, while that 
interpretation encompasses the requirements of section 214(i)(l)(A) of the Act, it does not establish 
section 214(i)(l)(B)'s requirement that the higher education degree must be "in the specific 
specialty." 12 
The RELX court then examined two district court decisions: 
Nowhere in the statute does it require the degree to come solely from one particular 
academic discipline. As other courts have explained "[ d]iplomas rarely come bearing 
occupation-specific majors. What is required is an occupation that requires highly 
specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has attained the credentialing 
indicating possession of that knowledge." See Residential Finance Corp. v. US. 
Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 839 F. Supp. 2d 985, 997 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (stating 
that when determining whether a position is a specialized occupation "knowledge and 
not the title of the degree is what is important."); 13 see also Tapis Int'! v. INS., 94 F. 
Supp.2 d 172, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2000) (rejecting a similar agency interpretation 
because it would preclude any position from satisfying the "specialty occupation" 
requirements where a specific degree is not available in that field). 
RELX, 397 F. Supp. 3d at 55. 
12 The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition. Notably, when the agency 
promulgated the regulation in 1991, it reiterated the statutory requirement of the specific specialty, when multiple 
commenters asserted that the "specific specialty" language was too restrictive. The agency stated the following: 
Most of these commenters suggested that the definition should be expanded to include those occupations 
which did not require a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. The definition of specialty occupation 
contained in the statute contains this requirement. 
56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61112 (Dec. 2, 1991). 
This "specific specialty" requirement has been recognized repeatedly. For example, in Caremax Inc v. Holder, 40 F. Supp. 
1182, 1187-88 (N.D. Cal. 2014 ), the court stated that "a position that requires applicants to have any bachelor's degree, or 
a bachelor's degree in a large subset of fields, can hardly be considered specialized." 
13 With regard to Residential Finance, to which the Petitioner also cites on appeal, it is worth noting that the judge's 
decision appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the Director in the decision denying the 
petition. We further note that the Director's decision was 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 for many of the same reasons articulated by the 
district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de nova review of the matter. To that end, we 
observe that when another H-lB petitioner challenged our reading of Residential Finance in the District Court for the 
Southern District of Ohio two years later, that court agreed with our interpretation of its earlier decision. See Health 
Carousel, LLC v. USCIS, No. 1: 13- CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
5 
While we may agree with these statements, the RELX court appears to have taken them out of their 
proper statutory context. For example, if the Director in this matter had stated that the requisite 
bachelor's degree was required to have come bearing an occupation-specific major, we would 
withdraw that finding because it would have been incorrect. We agree that the knowledge and not the 
title of the degree is what is important, and had the Director stated that an occupation for which a 
specific degree is not available was precluded from qualifying as a specialty occupation we would 
have withdrawn that statement. Neither the Residential Finance nor the Tapis Int 'l court implied that 
the "specific specialty" requirement contained in section 214(i)(l)(B) was optional. To the contrary, 
both courts found that the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirement. 14 
While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both mandate a requirement for a bachelor's degree 
in a singular "specific 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. 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. 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. However, since there must be a close 
correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and the position, a minimum 
entry requirement of a degree in two 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. 
We also disagree with the court's statements regarding the Handbook and the O*NET. Specifically, 
the court stated that: 
The explicit O*NET cross reference to Business Intelligence Analyst (SOC Code 
15-1199.08) contained in the [Handbook] listing for "Computer Occupations, All 
Other" defines the technological and educational requirements for the position and 
explains that "[m]ost of these occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, but 
some do not" with farther detail that more than 90% of Business Intelligence Analyst 
positions require at least a bachelor's degree. 
The [ Handbook]itself also explains that the typical entry level education for "Computer 
occupations, all other" is a "Bachelor's Degree." Since 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. 
14 As the Petitioner also cites to Residential Finance for reasons similar to that which it cites to RELX we incorporate 
herein by reference our discussion of closely related specialties as it pe1iains to our analysis of the RELX case. 
6 
The court did not acknowledge that neither the Handbook nor O*NET indicate that the bachelor's 
degree must be in a specific specialty, as mandated by section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. Nor do we 
concur with the heavy weight the court assigned to the survey results contained in O*NET's summary 
report for the occupational category at issue in RELX As noted by the court, 90% of the respondents 
to that survey stated that their organizations required a bachelor's degree for these positions. However, 
those survey results, like those discussed earlier in this decision, were based on a relatively small 
sample size: according to O*NET, that statistic was compiled based on 24 responses to a survey. 15 
We therefore disagree with the RELX court that the Handbook's entry for positions located within the 
"Computer Occupations, All Other" occupational category, and O*NET's entry for positions located 
within the "Business Intelligence Analysts" occupational category, were sufficient (whether 
considered together or independently from one another) to satisfy the "specific specialty" requirement 
mandated by Congress in section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act. 16 
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 meet 
the statutory and regulatory definition of a specialty occupation, we disagree with the heavy weight 
the court assigned them. Instead, we believe that, absent support from either 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 in a specific field would normally be required 
and whether the stated field(s) of study directly relate to the performance of the duties. 17 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 specialty, our 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. 
We therefore cannot agree with the reasoning contained in the RELX decision and conclude that the 
Petitioner's reliance upon it does not support its eligibility. 18 
The Petitioner also cites to Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015). 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 
15 Employment & Training Administration , Dep 't of Labor, Occupational Information Network , O*NET Resource Center, 
O*NET 24.2 Database , Education, Training , and Experience (click desired download format), available at 
https:/ /www.onetcenter.org /dictionary/24.2/excel/education _ training_ experience .html (last visited Jul. 16, 2020). 
16 See also Irish Help at Hom e LLC v. Melville, No. 13-cv-00943-M EJ, 2015 WL 848977 at *5 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2015), 
ajf'd 679 Fed. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2017) ("The AAO found that O*NET was not particularly useful in determining whether 
a baccalaureate degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent is a minimum entry requirement because it makes no mention 
of the specific field of study from which a degree must come") . 
17 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 Roya l Siam Corp ., the court accepted the petitioner 's stated standards concerning its 
position. Seege nerally Defensor, 201 F.3d 384,387. 
18 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. 
7 
that case are analogous to the position proffered here. There is little indication that the positions are 
similar. 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Raj. 19 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 oflaw. Id. 
As the foregoing demonstrates, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a 
probative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this 
particular position. Thus, 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 contemplates 
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 attest 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)). 
19 As in RELX, it is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many 
factual errors made by the Director in the decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was 
not appealed to us. Based on the district court's conclusions 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 for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied 
by us in our de nova review of the matter. 
8 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a 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. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from I I Associate Director of IT & Digital forl 
.__ _____ _,[ a global recruitment company. I lstates that based on his company'~s-y-ea-rs~ 
of experience in placing over 300 business intelligence analysts, the Petitioner's job requirements for the 
proffered position are typical of its competitors, and he would "estimate that at least 80% of the Business 
Intelligence Analysts and related positions that I Is has placed and recruited for require, at a 
minimum, a bachelor's degree in a quantitative field like Mathematics, Physics, or Engineering .... "D 
I lprovides no additional documentation to corroborate its claims, nor does he elaborate on the nature 
of his company's business and the various businesses/industries it claims to assist. While he claims that 
"this case falls within the typical hiring practices and requirements for the role and field as well as the 
~," he provides no additional documentation to support this assertion. While the statements of 0 
L___J are noted, his unsupported assertions do not establish an industry standard of hiring specialty 
degreed individuals for the position of business intelligence analyst. 
We have again reviewed the opinion letter fro~ I Although he asserts that a minimum of a 
bachelor's degree in mathematics, physics, or engineering, or a similar quantitative field, is required for 
entry into the proffered position, he does not demonstrate that he has experience or expertise regarding 
current recruiting and hiring practices for similar firms within the Petitioner's industry. Rather, he cites 
generally to careeronestop.org and itcareerfinder.com, career resources websites which indicate that 
individuals in positions within the IT industry "usually" have a bachelor's degree. We note, however, 
that these websites do not does not state that this type of degree is required, nor does it state that the 
bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. Instead, the site lists possible programs that can prepare 
a person for such an occupation, but it does not indicate that the programs comprise an exhaustive or 
exclusive list or that such programs are required in order to enter the occupation. 
The Petitioner also 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. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities are from organizations that conduct 
business in the Petitioner's industry. The Petitioner initially submitted five advertisements from the 
following organizations: The Boyd Companies, Spectrum, Perfection Leaming Corp., All Web Leads 
Inc., and Vaco, LLC. Of these five postings, only one organization - Perfection Leaming Corp. -
provided information on its business operations, indicating that it is a developer of curriculum solutions 
for grades K-12. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted additional postings from the following 
organizations: Apple, PUMA, RiskSpan, Nabler Web Solutions, Crossmedia, Evite, Inc., and Next 
Insurance. We are not persuaded that these organizations conduct business in the Petitioner's industry. 
The Petitioner states that it is an online insurance management platform. PUMA, however, is an athletic 
apparel and footwear designer, whereas Evite, Inc. is a social planning website. Perfection Leaming 
9 
Corp., as noted above, is an educational curriculum developer. Finally, most of the submitted postings 
provide little to no information regarding the industry in which the posting organization conducts 
business. For this reason, we cannot conclude that these advertisements are from organizations 
conducting business in the Petitioner's industry. 
The Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are relevant for consideration 
under this prong. Nevertheless, we additionally note that the record lacks evidence demonstrating that 
the positions advertised are parallel to that offered to the Beneficiary. While we acknowledge that 
many of the postings are for the position title "Business Intelligence Analyst," several of the postings 
advertise different position titles, such as "Data Analyst/Financial Analyst" by RiskSpam, "Digital 
Analyst" by N abler Web Solutions, and "Product Data Analyst" by Next Insurance. 20 All of the 
submitted postings provide generalized information regarding the duties associated with the advertised 
positions, thus precluding us from determining that the posted positions are similar to the one proffered 
here. 
In addition, we note that the postings encompass a broad range of degree requirements for the 
advertised positions. For example, the posting by The Boyd Companies will accept a bachelor's 
degree in computer science, mathematics, statistics, finance, logistics, or a related technical field. 
Apple will accept a bachelor's degree in computer science, statistics, mathematics, engineering, 
economics, or a related field. RiskSpan accepts degrees in finance, statistics, economics, engineering, 
applied mathematics, physics, information management systems, or computer science. These postings 
indicate that a range of disciplines is acceptable for entry into the occupation, and do not establish a 
standard industry requirement for a degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Moreover, the posting by Spectrum indicates that it will accept an individual with a degree in 
economics, mathematics, or business administration. As explained above, we interpret 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) as requiring 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. 
Finally, we note that the posting by Perfection Leaming Corp. simply states that a bachelor's degree 
with 3+ years of professional experience is required. A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered 
position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position 
in question. There must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the 
position; thus, the mere requirement of a degree, 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) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general education, or to 
obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish 
20 We also note the Petitioner's submission ofLinkedln profiles for individuals serving in the role of Data Scientist, Product 
manager, Product VP, and Product Manager at various companies it deems similar. We are not persuaded by these profiles. 
as these individuals are not employed in the proffered position of business intelligence analyst. We find their educational 
credentials irrelevant here, as they are not employed in the same position as the one proffered here and. moreover, it is 
unclear what the duties of these positions entail. As a result, these profiles do not support the Petitioner's assertion that a 
specialty degree requirement for parallel positions within similar organizations exists within the Petitioner's industry. 
10 
eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's degree 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 C01p., 484 F.3d at 147. 
Therefore, the Petitioner's reliance on this post as establishing an industry standard is misplaced . 
For the above stated reasons, we do not find that the job advertisements establish a common degree 
requirement within the Petitioner's industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 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. 21 That is, not 
every deficit of every piece of evidence has been addressed. 22 The Petitioner does not establish that, 
more likely than not, there is a common industry requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for parallel positions among similar organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 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. The Petitioner does not assert 
eligibility under this prong of this criterion, nor does it submit additional evidence to refute the 
Director's findings under this criterion. 
Nevertheless , we note that the evidence of record does not establish that this position is significantly 
different from other business intelligence analyst positions that can be performed without a degree in 
a specific specialty. In other words, the record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish 
the proffered position as unique from or more complex than business intelligence analyst or other 
closely related positions that can be performed by persons without at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or 
uniqueness as an aspect of the duties of the position, and it did not identify any tasks that are so 
complex or unique that only a specifically degreed individual could perform them. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the second alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(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. 
2 1 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. 
22 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 does not demonstrate 
what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the job postings with regard to the common educational 
requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social 
Research 186-228 (7th ed. 1995). 
11 
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 v. Meissner, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the 
Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be 
brought to the United States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner 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 submitted the Linkedln profiles, educational credentials, and paystubs for several 
employees it claims occupy the same or similar positions in its organization as the one proffered here. 
Specifically, the Petitioner submitted profiles for individuals working on its Business Intelligence 
Team. Although the Petitioner submitted profiles for individuals employed as a "business intelligence 
analyst" and "senior business intelligence analyst," the fact that such individuals share the same job 
title is insufficient. 23 The Petitioner did not submit job descriptions or position overviews for these 
individuals, such that we may determine that they occupy the same position as the one proffered to the 
Beneficiary. The Petitioner also did not submit any information regarding the complexity of the job 
duties, supervisory duties (if any), independent judgment required, or the amount of supervision 
received. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the duties and responsibilities of these individuals were 
the same or similar to the proffered position. 
The Petitioner also submitted profiles for individuals working in its Product & Operations Department. 
Upon review, we note that several of the profiles indicate that these individuals occupied the positions 
of VP and general manager, director of product, operations analyst, and data analyst, which do not 
appear akin to the proffered position of business intelligence analyst. While we acknowledge the 
Petitioner's statement that these profiles were intended to demonstrate that all its employees possess 
degrees in the field, they do support the Petitioner's assertion that it routinely hires only specialty 
degreed individuals for the position. 
Moreover, while we acknowledge that each of these individuals has at least a bachelor's degree, we 
also note that the degrees are in disparate fields, including mathematics, industrial engineering, 
economics, and business administration, thereby undermining the Petitioner's position that it routinely 
hires only specialty degreed individuals for the position. 
For the reasons set forth above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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 
23 We additionally note that the salary information for each individual is concealed, which precludes a determination that 
the individuals with the same job title as the proffered position are compensated at the same ( or a similar) rate of pay as 
the salary offered for the proffered position. 
12 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
The Petitioner contends that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis that 
its duties are so specialized and complex, and provided numerous documents outlining its business 
operations and the role of a business intelligence analyst therein. However, the duties as described 
lack sufficient specificity to distinguish the proffered position from other business intelligence analyst 
positions for which a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is not 
required to perform their duties. Although some tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with 
general quantitative principles, the record is insufficient to establish that the duties require anything more 
than a few basic courses and a broad educational background. While a few such courses may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof: 
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 duties of the proffered 
position. 
We return to the opinion ofl I wherein he opines that a minimum of a bachelor's degree in 
mathematics, physics, or engineering or a related area is required to perform the duties of the proffered 
position. Again, I !repeats the Petitioner's description of duties and concludes with minimal 
analysis that it is because the nature of the responsibilities and knowledge is so specialized and 
complex that the knowledge is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor's degree in such 
fields. While I I may draw inferences that the Beneficiary's coursework may be beneficial 
in performing certain duties of the position, we disagree with any inference that the Beneficiary's 
degree is required in order to perform the duties of the proffered position. Put simply, stating that a 
person with the Beneficiary's degree could perform the duties of the position is not the same as stating 
that such a degree is required to perform the duties . 
.__ ___ _.I concludes that the duties described are specialized and require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. Again, however, he does not acknowledge or discuss other methods that appear to 
be readily available such as a general bachelor's degree, certifications, or experience, that lead to a 
sufficiently similar knowledge-set, to perform the duties described. As previously stated, as a matter 
of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. However, we 
will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or 
if it is in any way questionable. For the reasons discussed, the position evaluation proffered here does 
little to assist in establishing that the proposed position is specialized and complex or unique and 
satisfies the statutory and regulatory definitions of a specialty occupation. 
The record does not establish that the nature of the proffered position's duties requires the theoretical 
and practical application of highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that its 
proffered position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
13 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is a 
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. 
14