dismissed H-1B Case: Business Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 20, 2023 In Re: 29023542 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified nonimmigrant 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 the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation nor that the Beneficiary was 
qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 to seek to employ the Beneficiary as a business intelligence analyst 
and it submitted a labor condition application (LCA) certified for a position in the business intelligence 
analyst occupational category. 1 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). 
1 After the filing of the petition, the Department of Labor 's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) advised that the business 
intelligence analyst entry contained at Standard Occupational Code (SOC) 15-1199.08 had been discontinued and replaced 
by the business intelligence analyst entry described at SOC 15-2051.01. 
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)(15)(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). Chiefly, the record does not 
contain a job description which sufficiently describes the position's duties with consistent detail to 
permit us to evaluate whether the duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, 
commensurate with a specialty occupation. 2 
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 
2 Although we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
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-lB petitions for engineers, certified public 
accountants, information technology professionals, and other occupations commensurate with what 
Congress intended when it created the H-lB 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 
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 
The vague and inconsistent manner in which the Petitioner has described the proffered position and 
its job duties render us unable to ascertain the position's substantive nature. 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)(])-( 4). We therefore 
agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that the position is a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner, founded in 2013, describes itself as a "global IT and Engineering solutions provider 
catering to a diverse customer base." But the Petitioner's description did not shed any meaningful 
light on the Petitioner's business and whether it requires the services of an individual performing the 
duties of a specialty occupation. So, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) seeking 
additional employer information. In response the Petitioner submitted copies of its most recent federal 
income tax return, photographs of its office, office lease and extensions, utility bill, and certificate of 
incorporation. The tax documents and invoices indicate an income which tends to reflect that the 
Petitioner may be conducting some business. However, it is not clear what the nature of the business 
operations is. The Petitioner's certificate of incorporation is similarly unable to illuminate what 
specific business the Petitioner operates and the services it offers. We note that the Petitioner's 
principal place of business is an apartment tower in southeastern Pennsylvania. Though the lease the 
Petitioner submitted lists "office" as the permitted use for the leased premises, the lease submitted into 
the record was incomplete. Although it referenced an "Exhibit A - Plan of Building and Premises," 
the record did not contain the exhibit. The submitted pictures appear to reflect a temporary workplace 
with easily removable signage and furniture. Whilst it can be inferred from the record and other 
materials that the Petitioner's business may have some connection to information technology and staff 
augmentation, it is wholly unclear what the nature of the service provided by the Petitioner to its clients 
is. When it is unclear as to what exactly the Petitioner does, it is equally unclear whether work of a 
specialty nature is required to accomplish the Petitioner's services for client IT organizations. 
If we are unable to assess, categorize, and comprehend the Petitioner's business, we cannot 
conclusively determine the type and complexity of the work described in the proffered job duties. And 
this is made especially more difficult when the job duties provided are vague, as is the case here. This 
vagueness obscures whether the proffered job is a specialty occupation. The Director requested 
3 
additional evidence because the Petitioner's duties were generalized and did not provide sufficient 
information to assess what the actual occupation is. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a chart containing the same key job duties as those 
listed in the initial petition. The chart contained a column describing "additional details about the job 
duty." But the "additional details" did not add the specificity we require to evaluate whether the 
proffered job's duties describe work of a specialty occupation nature. The Petitioner selected the 
"business intelligence analyst" entry at 15-1199.08 of the Department of Labor (DOL) Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) as the job category closest in correspondence to its business 
intelligence analyst position. But the initial job description (replete with buzz words and technical 
jargon) and the "additional details" to the job description the Petitioner provided in response to the 
Director's RFE does not explain how the job relates to or comprises duties that fall within the selected 
O*NET category. In one example, the Petitioner's job description as listed in the initial petition and 
RFE described a duty wherein the business intelligence analyst would "work with Sales, KYC, Credit, 
Onboarding, Compliance, Legel, IT, and CSG team for requirements storyboard preparations, 
validations, Testin (SIT, UAT), Training and Implementation." In response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
provided "additional details" stating this job duty related to gathering requirements, establishing 
project goals and objective, eliciting requirements, and documenting requirements. But it is not clear 
how this relates to any of the tasks the Petitioner reviewed when selecting "business intelligence 
analyst" as the most similar O*NET job category to their business intelligence analyst position. It is 
not evident from the evidence in the record how the Petitioner's duties would "synthesize current 
business intelligence or trend data," "maintain library of model documents, template, or other resuable 
knowledge assets," or any of the other tasks contained in the O*NET entry for business intelligence 
analyst. In fact, the "additional details" the Petitioner provided raised questions about the true nature 
of the job. For example, "liaising between product and development" or "understanding customer 
needs," can relate to jobs other than business intelligence analyst that are in the computer and software 
sphere. 3 So the characterization of the proffered job's duties raises questions about the substantive 
nature of the proffered job and therefore whether it is a specialty occupation that satisfies any of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Our doubts about the accuracy of the job duties go directly to the heart of whether the proffered job is 
a specialty occupation. And any evidence rooted in the • ob duties is considerably weaker as a result. 
The Petitioner provided an opinion statement from rofessor in the de artment of 
data analytics and information systems at~-------~--------------.--
..c=lwhich concludes that the Petitioner's proffered position is a specialty occupation. 4 But 
~pinion is based on the nonspecific job duties provided by the Petitioner. And as we said 
above, these job duties do not contain the specificity or detail required to evaluate whether the 
Petitioner's proffered job satisfies any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). Andi I 
opinion does not sufficiently tie in the Petitioner's job duties when they make their conclusions. For 
exampleJ Iopinion grounds the "complexity and specialization" of the Petitioner's proffered 
position in the minimum degree requirements for the position and not the specific tasks the Petitioner 
required the proffered position to perform. So I I opinion statement is not sufficiently 
3 See, e.g., Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Software Developer (Sept. 
6, 2023), https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm. 
41 I also shared their opinion about the Beneficiary's qualification in their respective opinions, as discussed below. 
4 
material, relevant, or probative to evaluate whether the Petitioner's business intelligence analyst 
position is a specialty occupation. We may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). But an opinion statement 
is afforded less weight by us where there is cause to question or doubt the opinion, or if it is not in 
accord with other information in the record as is the case here. 
In summary, we are 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)(])-(4). The Petitioner has therefore not overcome this ground of the 
Director's decision. 
II. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the position. 
However, a beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found 
to be a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Herts Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 56 (Comm'r 
1988). As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered job's duties are of the 
substantive nature of a specialty occupation requiring the application of a theoretical and practical 
body of highly specialized knowledge attained after earning a bachelor's degree or higher or its 
equivalent in the specific specialty minimally mandated for entry into position. See section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. So, we do not have to address the Beneficiary's qualifications farther. 
But even if the Petitioner had established that its proffered job is a specialty occupation, we would 
nonetheless conclude it had not provided material, relevant, or probative evidence of the Beneficiary's 
qualifications to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(2), states that an individual applying for classification 
as an H-lB nonimmigrant worker must possess a license if it is required for the occupation, have 
earned a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty related to the job duties, or have earned the 
equivalent of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty related to the job duties based on 
having experiences in the specialty equivalent to the completion of the degree and recognition of 
expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 
The supplementing regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) restate the statute and require meeting 
one of four criteria to qualify to perform services in a specialty occupation: 
(1) Hold a United States baccalaureate or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from 
an accredited college or university; 
(2) Hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States baccalaureate or higher 
degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university; 
(3) Hold an unrestricted state license, registration or certificate which authorizes him or her to 
folly practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged in that specialty in the state 
of intended employment; or 
5 
(4) have education, specialized trammg, and/or progressively responsible experience that is 
equivalent to completion of a United States baccalaureate or higher degree in the specialty 
occupation, and have recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively 
responsible positions directly related to the specialty. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D) provides five methods by which a petitioner can satisfy 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4): 
(1) An evaluation from an official who has authority to grant college-level credit for training 
and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university which has a program 
for granting such credit based on an individual's training and/or work experience; 
(2) The result of recognized college-level equivalency examinations or special credit programs 
such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), or Program on Noncollegiate 
Sponsored Instruction (PONS!); 
(3) An evaluation of education by a reliable credentials evaluation service which specializes in 
evaluating foreign educational credentials; 
(4) Evidence of certification or registration from a nationally-recognized professional association 
or society for the specialty that is known to grant certification or registration to persons in the 
occupational specialty who have achieved a certain level of competence in the specialty; 
(5) A determination by the Service that the equivalent of the degree required by the specialty 
occupation has been acquired through a combination of education, specialized training and/or 
work experiences in areas related to the specialty and that the noncitizen has achieved 
recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation as a result of such training and experience. 
B. Unqualified Beneficiary 
The Beneficiary earned an Indian master of business administration degree from theI I I I (now known as thel hand an Indian three-year bachelor of computer science 
from the same institution. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the 
Beneficiary's qualifications for the proffered specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l)-(3). So the Beneficiary does not hold a United States bachelor's or higher 
degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university. They likewise 
do not hold a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a United States bachelor's or higher degree 
required for the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university. Neither the 
Beneficiary's master of business administration degree nor their bachelor of computer science degree 
is the single source equivalent of a United States bachelor's or higher degree required by the specialty 
occupation from an accredited college or university. The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary holds an unrestricted State license, registration, or certification which authorizes them to 
fully practice the specialty occupation and be immediately engaged in that specialty in the state of 
intended employment. 
When the occupation does not require a license and the Beneficiary does not have the required U.S. 
degree or its foreign degree equivalent in the field required for entry to the specialty occupation, our 
analysis revolves around whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses the 
education, specialized training and/or progressively responsible experience in the specialty equivalent 
to the completion of the required U.S. degree or its foreign degree equivalent and has progressively 
6 
responsible experience in job position in the specialty constituting a recognition of expertise as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4). 
The Director based their decision on the insufficiency of the evaluations of the Beneficiary's education 
and work experience provided by the Petitioner. As we have stated before, we may exercise our 
discretion and consider opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Sea, 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). Most relevantly, the record of proceeding contains: 
• An evaluation submitted with the appeal byl la college professor atl
I l concluding that the Beneficiary's education, training and/or exper....ie_n_c_e_w_a_,s 
equivalent to a United States baccalaureate degree in computer information systems; and 
• Letters from the Beneficiary's former employers. 
The evaluation submitted by the Petitioner is also accompanied by the writer's curriculum vitae; a 
self-authored statement of "expertise," letter(s) from their employing institutions attesting to their 
authorization to grant college-level credit or training and/or work experience in the specialty at an 
accredited college or university which has a program for granting such credit based on an individual's 
training/work experience, and/or documentation either from an internal policy document or printed 
from publicly available internet sources describing the institution's policy for granting academic 
credit. 
The evaluation submitted by the Petitioner introduces questions and doubts about the Beneficiary's 
qualifications and does not fit into the requirements of the regulations at 8 C .F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(l). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(D)(l) requires that an evaluation 
to document eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(4) be issued by an official who has 
authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experiere in the srcialty at an accredited 
college or university which has a program for granting such credit. opinion is accompanied 
by two letters from officials a~ !attesting to authority to issue credit 
for relevant work experience where appropriate. The letters are identical in every way other than the 
date, letterhead, and signature block. Most specificallJ' the content of the submitted letters conflicts 
with public information from I which makes no provision for credit to be 
authorized based on work experience. Per their published policyl Ionly awards 
credit for academic work completed at other academic institutions and not for work experience or 
training. Examples of sources listed in the policy from whic~ lmay accept credit 
are accredited institutions, foreign universities, U.S. military credit for approved job and educational 
experience, and miscellaneous sources such as internships and nontraditional learning experiences. 
Work experience is not mentioned or provided for. Moreover, the polic] states that the credit may or 
may not apply for the purposes of graduation froml.________ _, regardless of the number of 
credits transferred. This conflict raises doubt about whether the writer is authorized to grant credit 
based on training and/or work experience. The record of proceeding does not contain material, 
relevant, or probative evidence addressing this discrepancy. I Iopinion does not satisfy the 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(l) to establish the Beneficiary's qualifications under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C)( 4). Opinion statements have less weight where there is cause to question 
or doubt the opinion, or if it is not in accord with other information in the record as is the case here. 
7 
And there is insufficient evidence in the record to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(2), (3), or (4). 
So we will tum to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) which grants USCIS the authority to make our 
own determination on the Beneficiary's qualifications. Specifically, we can evaluate that an individual 
has earned the equivalent of the degree required by the specialty occupation through a combination of 
education, specialized training and/or work experiences in areas related to the specialty and that the 
noncitizen has achieved recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation as a result of such training 
and experience. We may determine equivalency by accepting three years of specialized training and 
or work experience demonstrated by the individual for each year of college level training the 
noncitizen lacks. Additionally, the noncitizen must demonstrate recognition of expertise by one of the 
following: 
(i) Recognition of expertise in the specialty occupation by at least two recognized 
authorities in the same specialty occupation; 
(ii) Membership in a recognized foreign or United States association or society in the 
specialty occupation; 
(iii) Published material by or about the alien in professional publications, trade journals, 
books, or major newspapers; 
(iv) Licensure or registration to practice the specialty occupation in a foreign country; or 
(v) Achievements which a recognized authority has determined to be significant 
contributions to the field of the specialty occupation. 
The record is not sufficient to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4))(iii)(D)(5) either. The record of 
proceedings provides insufficient work-experience evidence for us to reasonably conclude that the 
Petitioner has satisfied any one of the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)(i)-(v). 5 So 
we cannot conclude that the evidence of the Beneficiary's work experience qualifies for recognition 
of any years of college-level credit by correct application of the H-lB beneficiary-qualification 
regulations' "three-for-one" standard. Based upon the findings articulated above, we conclude that 
the totality of the evidence regarding the Beneficiary's foreign education and work experience does 
not satisfy any criterion at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C) and (h)(4)(iii)(D). 
III. CONCLUSION 
It is the Petitioner's burden to provide competent and credible evidence of the nature of its proffered 
specialty occupation and the Beneficiary's qualification for the proffered position. The Petitioner has 
not met their burden for the reasons set forth above. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 Though acknowledged, the letters regarding the Beneficiary's work experience lack the detail necessary to meet these 
requirements. 
8