dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8977015 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 27, 2020 
The Petitioner, a business software company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "product 
specialist" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations.1 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 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 el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated in its H-lB petition that the Beneficiary wi II work onsite as a "product specialist" 
in the Petitioner's California office. On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support 
of the H-lB petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category 
of "Computer Systems Analysts" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-
1121.4 Though we do not describe every duty of the position, we have carefully considered each one. 
The Petitioner claims that the proffered position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in 
computer science, information systems, or a closely related field. 
1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
4 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level 11 wage. A wage determination starts with an entry-level wage 
(Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to Level IV) after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin ., Prevailing Wage 
Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf. 
II. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(I), 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: 
(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. 
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). 
B. 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. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
2 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 5 
1. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(1) 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 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 6 The Petitioner points out that the 
Handbook reports that "[m]ost computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer­
related field" and argues that this statement alone establishes that such positions are specialized. 7 
However, other statements in the Handbook recognize that there are a range of disparate degrees that 
may be suitable for entering into this occupation. The varied information in the Handbook regarding 
the ways to enter into this occupation precludes a conclusion that there is categorically a normal minimum 
educational requirement to enter the occupation. 
For example, the Handbook recognizes that "[a]lthough many computer systems analysts have technical 
degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement" and that "[m]any analysts have liberal arts degrees 
and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere."8 The Handbook does not clarify the 
type of technical degree or liberal arts degree (whether associate or bachelor's) and does not suggest how 
much programming or technical expertise would generally be required for an individual with a 
non-computer-related degree to enter into the occupation. Because the Handbook indicates that some 
employers accept less than a bachelor's degree, and that this lesser degree may even be in a non­
specific discipline, such as liberal arts, the Handbook does not describe the normal minimum 
educational requirement for the occupation in a categorical manner. 9 Absent support from the 
Handbook, or a similar persuasive source, the Petitioner then must demonstrate that its particular position 
is among the computer systems analyst positions for which a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support 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. 
6 We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. The Handbook may be 
accessed at https://www.bls.gov. 
7 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Aug. 
27, 2020). 
8 Id. 
9 See also Altimetrik Corp. v. Cissna, No. 18-10116, 2018, WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (noting that 
because the Handbook "makes it clear that a degree in a computer-related field is not required" for these positions, "USCIS 
[was] entitled to deference in its finding that systems analysts are not required to have a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty"). 
3 
its equivalent, is normally required. As the following discussion demonstrates, the Petitioner has not 
established this component of the specialty occupation requi rements.10 
In support of its assertions on appeal, the Petitioner cites information from the Foreign Labor 
Certification Data Center and states that the occupational category is classified under an Education 
and Training Code of "Four."11 The Petitioner further argues that this classification means most of 
the occupations require a bachelor's degree. In fact, the Education and Training Code for this 
occupational category is undesignated.12 Even if the occupational category did carry the Education 
and Training Code classification of a "Four," this designation does not suggest that the bachelor's 
degree must be in a specific specialty.13 Therefore, this information does not lend support to the 
Petitioner's arguments in this matter.14 
Similarly, the Petitioner cited to DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Computer Systems Analysts" (SOC code 15-1121.00). The O*NET Summary Report does not 
establish that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. It 
provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support a conclusion that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Instead, 
O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of these occupations 
require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone Four designation 
does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related 
to the duties performed. 
In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating designates this occupation as 7 < 8. 
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. The SVP rating also does 
not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require.15 Further, although the 
summary reports provide the educational requirements of "respondents," it does not account for 100% 
of the "respondents." Moreover, 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 
10 When reviewing the Handbook, we must note that the Petitioner designated the proffered position under this occupational 
category at a wage Level 11 on the certified LCA. Based upon this designation (relative to others within the occupation) it 
does not appear that the Beneficiary will serve in a senior or leadership role. This designation suggests that the individual 
in the proffered position will perform the lower-level routine tasks of a position located within the "Computer Systems 
Analysts" occupation. 
11 For more information, visit The Foreign Labor Certification Data Center at h~www.flcdatacenter.com/ 
12 https://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResu1ts.aspx?code=15-1121&area~year=19&source=1 states that for 
the relevant geographic region, wage year, and occupational category, the Education and Training Code is: "No Level 
Set." (last visited Aug. 27, 2020). 
13 https://flcdatacenter.com/TrainingCodes.aspx 
14 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") 
15 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
4 
specialty. For all of these reasons, O*NET does not establish the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. 
The Petitioner further cites to several district court cases16 and non-precedent AAO decisions17 to 
support the position that the statute and the regulation allow a finding of a specialty occupation even 
when more than one single field of study qualifies a candidate to perform in the position. 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 (or its equivalent)" 
requirement of section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act. We do not take issue with this interpretation. 
However, if the fields are not sufficiently similar, the Petitioner must explain how each of the various 
fields directly relates to the duties of the proffered position. In other words, because 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 disparate fields, such as computer science and liberal arts, 
would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent),"18 unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position.19 
The Petitioner also cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson20 as relevant here and uses it to 
support a conclusion concerning the meaning of what is "normally" the minimum requirement for the 
position.21 We question the applicability of Next Generation Tech., Inc. in the instant matter, as it 
analyzed our reading of the Handbook concerning the entry requirements for positions located within 
the different and separate occupational category of "Computer Programmers," rather than the 
"Computer Systems Analysts" category designated by the Petitioner in the LCA relating to this 
case. As noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally required for entry into this occupation, nor does it indicate the type of 
technical degree or level of technical training required to qualify those individuals with non-computer­
related degrees. 
16 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 l&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. 
17 The Petitioner refers to language from non-precedent AAO decisions in support for its assertion that the requisite 
knowledge to perform the duties of a specialty occupation position can be imparted through studies in a variety of academic 
areas. These decisions were not published as a precedent and therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. 
See 8 C.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. 
18 Section 214(i)(1)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
19 The court in Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012) did not eliminate the statutory 
"bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty" language imposed by Congress. Rather, it found that the petitioner 
in that case had satisfied the requirement. 
20 Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). 
21 We acknowledge the Petitioner's citations to various AAO decisions to support similar principles, analysis, and 
conclusions for which it cites Next Generation. 
5 
As already stated, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for certain 
professions, 22 many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 23 For example, "[the 
Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer occupation does not describe the normal 
minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a categorical fashion."24 In such a case, "[the 
Petitioner] could not simply rely on [the Handbook] profile, and instead had the burden to show that 
the particular position offered to [the Beneficiary] was among the Computer Programmer positions 
for which a bachelor's degree was normally required."25 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
(USCIS) policy memorandum regarding "Computer Programmers" indicating generally preferential 
treatment toward computer programmers, and "especially" toward companies in that particular 
petitioner's industry. However, USCIS rescinded the policy memorandum cited by the court in Next 
Generation Tech. lnc.26 
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)(1). 
2. 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. 
a. 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 
22 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
23 See lnnova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech., Inc.). 
24 Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
25 See lnnova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
26 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on HlB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H-lBComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
6 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals."27 
As noted, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is a common 
requirement within the industry for parallel positions among similar organizations. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, the Petitioner did not submit 
evidence from an industry professional association or from firms or individuals in the industry 
indicating such a degree is a minimum requirement for entry into the position. 
The Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," and the 
announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the Petitioner's 
industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. These job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that 
threshold. Upon review of the documents, we conclude that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. 
We will first consider whether the advertised job opportunities could be considered "parallel positions." 
Many of the advertisements include only a few general bullet points which do not provide us with 
sufficient information with which to draw any conclusions as to similarity with the proffered position. 
Bulleted job duties such as, "Engaging in design discussion" and "Technical and process leadership," are 
too vague and general to be useful. Further, other position duties do not readily relate to the duties of the 
proffered position. Duties involving vehicles and the automotive industry do not feature prominently in 
the Petitioner's description of the proffered position. Finally, almost all of the positions require a 
bachelor's degree and at least five years' experience and sometimes over seven years and even up to 
twelve years of experience. As such, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties 
and responsibilities of the advertised positions parallel those of the proffered position, particularly in 
terms of seniority, responsibility, and supervision. 
For these reasons alone, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. Even if that threshold had been met, we would still conclude that they did not satisfy this prong 
of the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. One employer 
states that specific experience is required, but that a degree in computer science or other technical 
discipline is a preference. Another employer accepts experience in lieu of education.28 As the 
documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, further analysis 
27 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)). 
28 While we acknowledge that the regulations allow for equivalent experience, there is no indication that the experience required 
by this employer is specialized. The announcement simply indicates that it must relate to the "functional area" and therefore 
we have insufficient information to determine whether the required experience, both in terms of quality and quantity, would 
actually be equivalent to at least a bachelor's degree in the specific specialty. 
7 
regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not necessary.29 That is, not 
every deficit of every piece of evidence has been addressed. 30 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient probative evidence to establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar 
organizations. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
b. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
or documented why the proffered position is so complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty is required. A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted sufficient 
and consistent evidence describing the proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the 
position. The Petitioner provided many abstract duty descriptions including the following verbatim 
duties: 
I Drive a holistic vision of a given product's design and implementation, while 
ensuring that the product's associated teams have a shared and comprehensive 
understanding of that vision; 
I Contribute to the development of a given product's business case and develop and 
drive its vision and roadmap; and 
I Develop clear views of near-horizon and long-term product development, 
maintenance, and evolution. 
The Petitioner has not clearly explained how the Beneficiary will provide a "holistic vision," for 
example, or even what such a vision involves. Moreover, we do not know what "clear views" or the 
"roadmap" entail and as such, it is not possible to ascertain how these abstract concepts involve or 
require specialized knowledge. 
Not only does the Petitioner not provide an explanation on how these duties require specialized 
knowledge, many of the duties themselves are described in vague and general terms, not allowing us 
29 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. 
30 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). 
8 
to understand what the Beneficiary will actually do when carrying out the undefined tasks. For 
instance, we have no information on what the Beneficiary will do to: 
I Ensure product delivery in accordance with solution strategies; 
I Accept or reject Spring results on the Scrum of Scrum level; 
I Align architecture with stakeholders regarding architectural or technical dependencies; 
I Manages escalations inside and outside of project; and 
I Develop and document use cases and validate them with customers to incubate 
concepts toward early product designs. 
These descriptions do not clearly convey what activities the Beneficiary will engage in when 
completing the duty. We do not know, for example, how the Beneficiary will "align architecture," 
"manage escalations," or "ensure delivery." Moreover, though the Petitioner lists the education 
associated education level in the column next to these duties, merely listing the education does not 
sufficiently explain why it would be required to perform the duty. We conclude that the Petitioner has 
not explained in detail what these tasks are and how performance of them requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
Finally, many duties appear to be administrative or clerical in nature and we question whether they 
require any specialized knowledge or skill. Duties to communicate with stakeholders; perform 
research; collect feedback; participate in customer events; and keep people aware of developments 
appear to be largely relationally- and communication-based work. It is unclear from the record how 
or why any academic degree would be required to perform this work, let alone a bachelor's degree in 
computer science or information systems. As described, these duties suggest that the Beneficiary will 
be relieved of performing qualifying work. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to ensure that its description of the duties sufficiently convey the Beneficiary's 
day-to-day activities such that we may grasp whether the position actually requires the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge attained through at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline.31 We conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the 
duties of the position are so complex or unique that they can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
As alternative evidence for our consideration under this and the other criteria, the Petitioner submitted an 
opinion letter from of the Com
1
uter Science and Engineering Department at the 
University.__ __ ___.The first two pages ofl's letter discuss his qualifications to opine on the 
matter, provide an overview of the Petitioner, and list the documents and sources he reviewed in forming 
his opinion. The last two pages of the letter provide an opinion as to the Beneficiary's qualifications for 
the position, how the fields of computer science and information systems relate to each other, as well as 
a summary and I Is signature. As such, the letter condenses the discussion of the proffered 
31 We acknowledge the~project information and work product samples. While these are helpful in providing 
additional context, as well as general information about the position and the product upon which the Beneficiary will work, 
this information does not sufficiently convey why the work requires specialized knowledge or is particularly complex or 
unique. Further, the Petitioner has not addressed how use of the Petitioner's proprietary products would be learned in a 
bachelor's degree program, as it seems apparent that this knowledge would be gained through on-the-job training. 
9 
position to four paragraphs that span less than one page. For the following reasons, this opinion offers 
little probative value in this matter. 
,___ __ _.ldoes not provide sufficient analysis as to why the duties of the position require specialized 
knowledge. Rather, he lists duties in one paragraph, lists the skills gained in a computer science or 
information systems bachelor's degree program in two other paragraphs, and concludes that at least a 
bachelor's degree in computer science or information systems is required to perform the duties.I I 
does not sufficiently connect the knowledge gained in these programs to the duties of the position. Merely 
listing the duties and listing knowledge areas does not substantiate a finding that the position requires 
specialized knowledge. 
More specifically, in listing the duties.I I provides little insight into how the duties are performed 
in the context of the Petitioner's business. Therefore, his letter adds little to our understanding of the 
position as a whole, let alone its complexity or uniqueness. After listing several duties in paragraph form, 
including "expert testing" and "creating product-related non-coded assets, "I I states that the ski I ls 
required to perform these duties "are learned and refined through courses of Computer Science, 
Information Systems, and related coursework in data structures, quality control, and network theory, 
among other subjects." Neither! I nor the Petitioner define what "expert testing" means or what 
"product-related non-coded assets" are or why these duties are important in the context of the proffered 
position and the Petitioner's business overall. 
As the purpose of an opinion letter in this matter is to provide clarity on the proffered position's duties, 
why the duties require specialized knowledge to perform them, and what type of specialized knowledge 
would be needed, if any, we conclude thatl I letter falls short in this regard. Though he provides 
the conclusion that the position requires at least a bachelor's degree in computer science or information 
systems and that this represents an industry standard for positions of this nature.I ldoes not 
substantiate his conclusion with sufficient analysis whereby we might ascertain how he reached such 
conclusions. While we will review the opinion presented, it has little probative value as it does not 
include specific analysis of the duties of the proffered position, nor does it provide sufficient analysis 
with which to establish an industry standard.32 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position and references her 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a particular beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires 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 of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h )( 4)(i i i)(A)(2). 
32 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt'I, Inc., 
19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 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. Id. Here, the opinion presented 
does not offer a cogent analysis of the duties and why the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. We 
hereby incorporate our discussion o~ l's opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) 
criteria. 
10 
3. 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. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. 
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.33 
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.34 Evidence provided in support of this 
criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the Petitioner's past recruitment 
and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who previously held the position. 
The Petitioner provided a series of internal job postings to evidence that a specialty degree requirement 
is their common recruitment practice. As emphasized by the Petitioner on appeal, these documents 
do not evidence actual hiring, but rather recruitment only. In examining the postings themselves, we 
note that none of them is for the same position as the proffered position both in terms of duties and 
titles. Moreover, the advertisements appear to be for more senior roles than the proffered position, in 
that each requires a bachelor's degree in addition to years of experience ranging from five to ten years. 
Additionally, the postings do not support a finding that the Petitioner normally requires a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. One posting indicates that any type of bachelor's degree is acceptable, 
but that a technical degree is "strongly valued." The other postings state that the Petitioner accepts a 
variety of degrees, including a general-purpose degree in business administration. As already noted, a 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further 
specification, does not establish that the position qualifies as a specialty occupation.35 On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues that including a business administration degree as a qualifying field is designed to be 
open and inclusive so as not to discourage candidates with nontraditional qualifications from applying, 
thereby allowing the Petitioner to attract a variety of talented applicants. Further, the Petitioner argues 
that "business administration" is not a generalized degree, but that it is specialized, as evidenced by such 
a degree being offered by schools such as Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia. We make no finding as to 
the truth of these statements, but rather we observe that the Petitioner appears not to consider that these 
universities may require a further specialization when majoring in business administration, for example, 
concentrations in marketing or finance. 
The Petitioner also states on appeal that it would accept, for example, a candidate with a bachelor's degree 
in business administration with six years of relevant experience for the proffered position. Even if true, 
this alone would not establish that the position is specialized, as there is no evidence that the required 
experience and education is specialized. Nor does this statement evidence a common recruiting and hiring 
practice that would establish eligibility under the third criterion. Here, the Petitioner appears to assert that 
33 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
34 Id. 
35 Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
11 
its recruitment practices vary and are subject to preference, rather than a standard minimum qualification 
dictated by the performance of the duties. 
The Petitioner also lists the degree types of ten people it claims hold the position of product specialist. 
The record does not include any job duties performed by these employees, or the job advertisements for 
their positions. Therefore, we do not know what the recruitment process for hiring these individuals 
involved or whether specialized degrees were prerequisites. The Petitioner further did not submit the 
names of the individuals, evidence of hiring, or information as to whether the educational credentials 
were earned in the U.S. Though it has been in business since 1996 and claims 2,108 U.S. employees, 
the Petitioner has not provided the total number of people it has employed in the past to serve in the 
proffered position nor has it provided information about its past hiring history for the proffered position. 
Consequently, no determination can be made about the Petitioner's normal recruiting and hiring practices 
for the proffered position. The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
4. 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. 
Although some tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with general business processes, including 
Ariba product knowledge, 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. Though the Petitioner lists duties in one column and an educational degree in the adjacent 
column, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain what the duties actually involve or why they 
require the stated education to perform them. 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), 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). We incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis on this matter. 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Ill. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
Though not a stated basis for the Director's decision, we conclude that the evidence of record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in a specialty occupation. The Petitioner 
submitted documentation evidencing that the Beneficiary earned a three-year foreign academic degree 
12 
in economics and social sciences and a two-year foreign master's degree in economics.36 
Accompanying these documents is an academic and experience evaluation from Morningside 
Evaluations. USCIS does not accept a credentialing services' evaluation of experience, therefore only 
the academic portion of the document will be considered.37 The evaluation states that the three-year 
academic degree in economics is the equivalent of U.S. bachelor's degree and that the evaluator based 
this equivalency on the "concentrated coursework" and "other specialized studies" that the Beneficiary 
completed. The record does not contain any information on the coursework or studies the Beneficiary 
engaged in to earn this degree and therefore we cannot independently corroborate the accuracy of 
Morningside Evaluations' statements. With only the diploma in the record, we cannot ascertain how 
a three-year academic degree is the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, which typically requires 
four years of full-time study. 
In viewing the credentials as a whole, we also question how the Beneficiary's academic credentials 
meet the Petitioner's stated qualifications for a bachelor's degree in computer science or information 
systems. We return tol Is opinion and read that based on his review of the petition and 
supporting documents, he finds the Beneficiary to possess the qualifications required. His letter states 
that both computer science and information systems have an underlying commonality of computer 
hardware and software. I I also I ists six courses the Beneficiary undertook that are relevant to 
the proffered position. The record does not establish how these six courses involve the study of 
computer hardware and software, nor can we ascertain how six courses would be sufficient to form 
the basis of a bachelor's degree in one of the qualifying fields. The record contains only the titles of 
these courses, most of which do not suggest any study of computer hardware and software. 38 
The Petitioner also submitted an opinion letter froml I a professor in the Computer 
Science Department atl I University. I Is letter analyzes how bachelor's degree 
programs in computer science and information systems are closely related, what study in these 
programs involves, and why these programs are excellent preparation for occupations falling within 
the computer systems analyst category. Among the conclusions contained within this opinion letter, 
we read that study in the qualifying fields involves: 
I [l]nner workings of computers, hardware, and software systems, as well as the 
principles of data storage, networking and various [] software languages; 
I [A] wide range of computer programming and scripting languages, database 
systems; 
I [S]oftware and systems engineering; and 
I [P]rofessional grade knowledge of computer hardware and software. 
36 English translations for some of the information is included within the educational credential itself, however some of 
the information is not translated, including the full title of the Beneficiary's master's degree program. 
37 We acknowledge that the evaluator who authored this evaluation through Morningside Evaluations has submitted letters 
from thel I University to establish the evaluator's authority to grant college level credit for training and/or 
experience. The letters do not explicitly establish the evaluator's authority in this regard, but rather state that the University 
awards the credit based upon the evaluator's recommendation. Moreover, the program at the university for granting credit 
for experience is one that grants it only to matriculated students engaging in programs like internships, co-ops, and other 
university-sanctioned experiential courses, not employment engaged in apart from being a student. Therefore, this 
evaluation does not meet the requirements for an experience equivalency evaluation. 
38 I I lists Project Management, Corporate IT Governance, Digital Inclusion for Development, Strategy and 
Strategic Analysis, Organizational Behavior and Leadership, and Management and Sustainable Development. 
13 
In viewing the courses undertaken by the Beneficiary in her master's degree in economics program, 
the course titles do not readily indicate this type of study. It is not apparent how the Beneficiary's 
degree program is relevant to the proffered position or equates to either of the qualifying fields of 
computer science or information systems. Though we do not accept Morningside Evaluations' 
assessment of the Beneficiary's experience, we do note that the Petitioner states the Beneficiary has 
worked for the Petitioner since July 2014.39 The record contains insufficient information with which 
to conclude that any of this experience is the equivalent to any level or amount of academic study. 
However, even if we were to accept all of the work experience from July 2014 until the filing of the 
petition as qualifying under USCIS' three for one standard, a conclusion which is not supported by 
the record, the number of years of experience would equate to approximately one and a half years of 
academic study. 
From even the most generous of perspectives, the Beneficiary's academic record and experience does 
not appear to be the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in computer science or information systems, or 
a closely related field. We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform the duties of a specialty occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 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. 
39 Other parts of the record state July 2015. 
14