dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5446006 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 5, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "senior project lead" under the H-IB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Upon 
de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
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: 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(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, a systems integration company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a computer systems 
engineer. The Petitioner provided a description of the proffered position in its initial letter of support, 
and expanded on those duties in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). The second 
description provided a percentage breakdown of the time the Beneficiary would devote to each task, 
as well as notations regarding the knowledge and coursework necessary to perform the duties of the 
position. For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the duty descriptions; however, we have closely 
reviewed and considered the duties. The Petitioner stated that the position requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in management information systems or a highly related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
We have reviewed the entire record of proceedings before us. For the reasons discussed below, we 
have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 2 Specifically, we conclude that the record does not establish that the job duties 
require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
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 recognize the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide 
2 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
3 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the petition, including evidence regarding the position and its business 
operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
variety of occupations that it addresses. 4 The Petitioner designated the proffered position on the labor 
condition application (LCA)5 as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1199 "Computer 
Occupations, All Other" occupation. 
There are occupational categories the Handbook does not cover in much, if any, detail. 6 Thus, the 
Handbook's narrative reports that there are some occupations for which only summary data is 
prepared, and detailed occupational profiles are not developed. 7 The Handbook suggests that for at 
least some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be developed. 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
provisions of a specialty occupation, it is the Petitioner's burden to provide probative evidence (e.g., 
documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular 
position in question qualifies as a specialty occupation. When more than one authoritative source 
exists, we will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner asserted that the duties of the proffered position are consistent with 
the duties of the "Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects" occupation under SOC code 15-1199 .02. The 
Petitioner referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for this 
occupational category as its alternative source for consideration. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding 
the educational requirements for these positions. 
The Petitioner highlights the Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of "7 < 8" cited within 
O*NET as evidence that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 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. However, 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. The SVP rating also does not specify the particular 
type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 8 
4 The Handbook may be accessed at https://www.bls.gov/ooh. 
5 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Depaitment of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid 
by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73 l(a). 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dep't of Labor, Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Mar. 4, 2020). 
7 We note that occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range of 
occupations, including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers of aiiists, 
performers, and athletes; farm and home management advisors; audio-visual and multimedia collections specialists; clergy; 
merchandise displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line supervisors of police and detectives; crossing 
guards; travel guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ help/online/svp 
(last visited Mar. 4, 2020). 
3 
Next, we will address DOL's designation in the summary report of the occupation as a Job Zone Four. 
Similar to the SVP rating, the summary report does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job 
Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. 
Finally, we note that the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but 
does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation 
are not distinguished by career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph 
in the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. 9 For all of these reasons, O*NET is not sufficient to establish the proffered position 
as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner also submitted ,n opinion letter froml I Emeritus Professor oflnformation 
Systems atl ]University. In his letter, I I (1) describes the credentials 
that he asserts qualify him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) references the duties 
proposed for the Beneficiary; and (3) states that those duties require at least a bachelor's degree in 
management information systems or a related major. We carefully evaluated I Is 
assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his letter is not 
persuasive. 
Although the Petitioner asserts on appeal that I f "goes into detail about precisely how 
much the writer knows about the business," we find that he did not discuss the duties of the proffered 
position in substantive detail. While he states that he reviewed the duties of the position as provided 
by the Petitioner, and spoke with.__ _______ __, the Petitioner's chief technology officer 
J.QIQ), the extent of his familiarity with the position and its associated duties is unclear. I I 
L__jloes not include or restate the position description upon which he relied in his evaluation. 
Moreover, he appears to simply adopt as fact what he was told by the CTO regarding the duties of the 
proffered position (i.e., he states that "the CTO confirmed that successful Computer Systems 
Engineers must possess detail technical knowledge of [the Petitioner's] suite of Digital Enterprise 
Solutions."). Additionally, rather than draw his own independent conclusions regarding the proffered 
position, he continually relies on the CTO's statements, beginning his statements with "the CTO 
stressed .... ," "the CTO described .... ," and "the CTO explained .... ". It is unclear, therefore, if 
I Is opinion was formed based on his independent review of the proffered position and 
its associated duties or, rather, based primarily on the conclusory statements of the Petitioner's CTO. 
There is no indication thatl !possesses any knowledge of the Petitioner's proffered 
position beyond the documents he referenced and what he was told by the Petitioner's CTO. 
In addition,! I wrote that "it would be extremely difficult for someone without the 
extensive conceptual preparation provided by a Bachelor's degree in Management Information 
Systems or a related degree to be prepared for success as a Computer Systems Engineer at [the 
Petitioner]." I I asserts a general industry educational standard for the proffered position 
without referencing any supporting authority or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. 10 His 
9 Nor is it apparent that these individuals' credentials were hiring prerequisites. 
JO We note the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that such a conclusory statement misapplies the regulatory definition of 
"recognized authority" under 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(h)(4)(ii), which pertains to determining a beneficiary's qualifications. In 
4 
op1mon does not relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's business 
operations to demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational requirements 
for the particular position here at issue. For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letter 
froml lis insufficient to establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (The service is not required to accept or 
may give less weight to an advisory opinion when it is "not in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable."). 
In summary, and for each and all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the opinion letter 
rendered by I I is not probative in establishing the proffered position as a specialty 
occupation. The conclusion reached byl I lacks the requisite specificity and detail and is 
not supported by independent, objective evidence demonstrating the manner in which he reached such 
conclusion. There is an inadequate factual foundation established to support the opinion and the 
opinion is not in accord with other information in the record. Therefore, the letter from I 
does not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
We may, in our discretion, use advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 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. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director misinterpreted 
Matter of Caron, noting that the Director failed to give due deference to I ts opinion. 
We disagree. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Matter of Caron, 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 
24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) ("[E]xpert opinion testimony, while undoubtedly a form of 
evidence, does not purport to be evidence as to 'fact' but rather is admissible only if 'it will assist the 
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.'"). As a reasonable exercise of 
our discretion we discount the advisory opinion letter as not probative of any criterion of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is located within an 
occupational category for which the Handbook, or any other relevant, authoritative source, indicates 
that the normal minimum entry requirement is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
the equivalent. Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided documentation from another probative 
support of this assertion, the Petitioner relies on Button Depot, Inc. v. DHS, 386 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (C.D. Cal. 2005), Fred 
26 Importers v. DHS, 445 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2006), and Hong Kong T. V Video v. llchert, 685 F. Supp. 712, 717 
(N.D. Cal. 1988). The court in Button Depot, Inc. addressed the issue ofa beneficiary's qualifications to perform the duties 
of a proffered Josition, which is not at issue here. Nevertheless, we did not make a determination regarding whether 
I is a recognized authority, as the Petitioner seems to suggest. Rather, we noted that his conclusory 
statements regarding the proffered position, without sufficiently explaining the manner in which that conclusion was 
reached or identifying resources that may have been consulted in reaching such a determination, does not satisfy the 
Petitioner's burden of proof. For these reasons, we decline to consider the professor's letter as probative. 
We further determine that neither Fred 26 Importers nor Hong Kong T. V Video apply here, as the Petitioner seems to 
suggest. The issue in those cases was whether USCIS had properly considered certain evidence submitted by the petitioner. 
Here, we have carefully considered all evidence submitted by the Petitioner and have articulated the reasons why we deem 
such evidence insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
5 
source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular 
position. The Petitioner therefore 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 concentrates on 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. We generally 
consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree requirement: 
whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's professional 
association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or affidavits from 
firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting 
Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the Handbook, or another authoritative 
source, reports at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent is required for the 
proffered position, and we incorporate our previous discussion on this matter. In addition, there are 
no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a 
minimum entry requirement. 
In support of its assertion that the degree requirement is common to the industry, the Petitioner submitted 
a letter from j I Expert-Level Digital Business Strategist in the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer atj 11 I contends that he is qualified to opine upon the nature 
of the position and any applicable industry standards due to his 25 years of experience in the IT industry, 
and submits a copy of his resume. I I provides a brief overview of the proffered position with 
the Petitioner, and states that, based upon his review of the Petitioner's description of the proffered 
position, the position requires an individual with a bachelor's degree in management information 
systems or a related field. He further stated that a bachelor's degree in management information 
systems or a related field "is considered perfectly reasonable to impose and indeed, has been a 
longstanding industry standard among employers." For the reasons set out below, we conclude that 
I I's opinion holds little weight in this matter. 11 
11 As previously noted, we may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter 
of Caron, 19 T&N Dec. at 795. 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 
6 
.__ ___ _.I does not sufficiently articulate the basis upon which his opinion is rendered. First, he 
provide no documentation to support his assertions. He has not submitted evidence pertaining to his 
company's business operations, such that we can conform his claim thatl I is similar to 
the Petitioner. 12 Moreover, he submits no evidence of his company's hiring practices or hiring 
histories for individuals employed in his company as computer systems engineers, such that we can 
confirm that the company routinely hires only specialty degreed individuals. Finally, while he claims 
that an industry standard exists, he provides no additional evidence to corroborate this statement. 
The record does not establish that similar organizations in the Petitioner's industry have a common 
degree requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty, for 
positions falling within this occupational category. Thus the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong 
of the regulation 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's description of the proposed position and observe that this description 
presents a broad overview of a computer systems engineer position. While we note the Petitioner's 
multiple descriptions of the duties of the proffered position, specifically the annotated description 
submitted in response to the RFE, we find that the descriptions do not adequately convey the level of 
complexity or uniqueness of the work that the Beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis. The 
Petitioner's description lists the duties and the percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote to 
certain tasks, along with the Beneficiary's relevant coursework and/or knowledge required to perform 
the duties. However, the record does not demonstrate that the necessary knowledge for the proffered 
position is attained through an established curriculum of particular courses leading to a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While a few related courses may be beneficial 
in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established 
curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. The duties as described by the 
Petitioner do not appear to be so complex or unique such that a degree in management information 
systems would be necessary to perform them. 
We again tum to the letters submitted byl I and I ] First, regarding the assertions 
of.__ ____ __,, we once again note that his conclusions appear to be based primarily on the 
statements and recommendations of the Petitioner's CTO. Therefore, we find the professor's claim 
that regarding the complexity and uniqueness of the duties of the position to be of little weight. 
incorporate our discussion ofl ts opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A) criteria. 
12 We note that the record contains evidence suggesting that the Petitioner's employees work with BM C's suite of products. 
However, the exact nature 0±1 ts business operations is unclear. 
7 
Regarding I Js letter, we question the nature of the duties to which he refers and upon which 
he comments. Although he states that he has reviewed the job description for the proffered position, 
he does not restate that description or provide a copy of the description upon which he relied. As we 
do not have a copy of any correspondence or notes shared between the Petitioner, the Beneficiary, and 
I I we cannot accept his secondhand interpretation of the duties. 
We farther note that whenl I discusses the proffered position, he concludes that the position 
is specialized and requires a bachelor's degree in management information systems or a related field 
without providing analysis or an explanation as to why. In place of analysis, we note thatl I 
labels the duties and the educational requirements as "complex" and "specialized" but he does not 
explain why such duties require highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty. As described, the duties of the proffered position do not appear to be 
complex or unique. For instance, I ] indicates that the proffered position is specialized and 
complex because it requires business strategy to strong industry expertise. He then concludes that the 
position requires in-depth knowledge and understanding typically associated with the attainment of a 
bachelor's degree in management information systems or a related field, yet provides no specific 
reason or analysis explaining how he reaches this conclusion. I I does not clearly explain 
why any of the duties referred to in his letter are complex or unique and require specialized knowledge 
to be performed. 
The Petitioner indicated that the majority of the Beneficiary's time (50%) would be devoted to the 
installation and configuration of software solutions for customers. Specifically, the Petitioner 
indicated that associated duties would include engaging in software deployment practices and ensuring 
that deployed software projects meet IT security standards. It also indicated that the Beneficiary would 
create technical documentation of the work accomplished for the customers. Upon review, it appears 
that these are standard duties associated with positions in the information technology field. While the 
Petitioner indicated that courses such as "database management systems" and "networking and 
telecommunications" provided the required knowledge to perform these duties, the record is devoid 
of specific evidence explaining what makes these particular duties so complex or unique that they can 
only be performed by a specialty-degreed individual. 
Furthermore, we note the submission of sample work products of the Beneficiary, dealing with various 
I I products. While noted, the documentation submitted sheds little light on the role of the 
Beneficiary in such products, and we are unable to determine the level of complexity or uniqueness of 
the proffered position based on this documentation alone. Again, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
explained the manner in which the nature of the position rises to the level of complexity and 
uniqueness contemplated by this criterion. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position, and references his 
qualifications. However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education 
or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner did not 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)(iii)(A)(2). 
8 
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. 
The record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement is not a matter of preference for 
high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance requirements of the position. See 
Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. Were we limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed 
requirements, an organization could bring any individual with a bachelor's degree to the United States to 
perform any occupation as long as the petitioning entity created a token degree 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. 
Here, the Petitioner states that it has employed three individuals in the same or similar position within 
the past two years. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner submitted a list of these individuals 
accompanied by copies of their educational credentials, 13 pay stubs, and payroll reports, as well as 
copies of its Quarterly Federal Tax Returns for the period from July to December 2018. 
We note that the three individuals identified by the Petitioner hold the title of "Value 
Consultant/Computer Systems Engineer." However, while the Petitioner has submitted evidence of 
their academic achievements and confirmed their employment with the Petitioner, the record contains 
no evidence to substantiate that these employees perform the same duties as that of the proffered 
position here. Although the Petitioner submitted a letter from its chief executive officer discussing 
the educational credentials of these individuals, he makes no reference to the duties and responsibilities 
associated with their positions. The record contains insufficient evidence that these individuals have 
or had the same or similar substantive responsibilities, duties, and performance requirements as the 
proffered position. 
Here, the Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the third criterion of 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 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
As discussed, neither the Handbook nor another authoritative source indicates that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required for positions located within this 
13 We note that each individual holds a degree in a distinct: management information systems, computer information 
systems, and software engineering. The Petitioner maintains that degrees in computer information systems and software 
engineering are closely related to the field of management information systems. 
9 
occupational category, and the Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered position's duties provide 
insufficient information to determine whether the nature of the position is so specialized and complex 
that it can be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. While the Petitioner's job description contains numerous action verbs such as 
"resolve," "perform," and "create," the record is not sufficiently developed so as to allow us to 
understand what the Beneficiary would actually do as he carries out these undefined tasks. 
Nevertheless, we have again reviewed the duties of the proffered position in full. The descriptions do not 
detail the specialized and complex nature of specific duties the Beneficiary will perform. The Petitioner 
describes a position that involves knowledge of information technology methods and techniques. The 
Petitioner, however, does not develop relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of the proffered 
position. The proposed duties do not include meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually 
be required to do in the proffered position and how those duties require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
We have again reviewed! Is opinion in order to ascertain what elements of the particular 
position are specialized and complex. We again do not find the opinion persuasive. I ldoes 
not present a descriptive analysis that supports his ultimate conclusion that the duties described are 
specialized, requiring a bachelor's degree in management information systems or a related area at a 
minimum. We again note that his information upon which his opinion is based is unclear, and is not 
supported with analysis demonstrating that the duties of the proposed position require a bachelor's 
degree in management information systems. I ldoes not describe why the Petitioner's 
particular duties require any one of or all of these courses. That is, he does not adequately explain 
why the position cannot be performed by a person without a degree in management information 
systems. 
We have also again reviewed the letter froml I however, for reasons previously discussed, 
we find it unpersuasive. As noted, I I concludes that the position is specialized and requires 
a bachelor's degree in management information systems or a related field without providing sufficient 
analysis or explanation. Simply labeling the duties as "specialized" without explaining why such 
duties require highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty does not suffice. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. While the position may require that the Beneficiary 
possess some skills and technical knowledge in order to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how these tasks require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not satisfied at least 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. 
10 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11