dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-S-._I _ _, 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 30, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioned I seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as a "business 
analyst" under the H-lB nonimrnigrant classification for specialty occupations. See hnmigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 
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 California Service Center denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonirnmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the record did not establish that the proffered position qualified as a specialty 
occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's denial was in error. 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l) , defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge , and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition , but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition , the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation : 
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is nonnally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
Matter of F-sO 
(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 provided a job description for the proffered position, which included the approximate 
percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend on each duty and how the duties will be carried out. 
According to the Petitioner, the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in electrical 
engineering, computer engineering, information systems, or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 1 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. 2 
A. First Criterion 
We first tum to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which 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 U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 3 The Petitioner 
1 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
2 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. 
3 We do not however. maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. To satisfy the first 
criterion, the Petitioner bears the burden to submit sufficient evidence to support a determination that its particular position 
will normally have at its minimum, a bachelor's degree requirement in a particular specialty, or its equivalent, for entry at 
any level - be it at the entry level (Level I), or at the fully competent level (Level TV). 
2 
Matter of F-SLJ 
submitted the required DOL ETA Form 9035 & 9035E, Labor Condition Application for 
Nonimmigrant Workers (LCA) with this petition, where it classified the proffered position under the 
occupational title "Computer Systems Analysts," corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) code 15-1121. 4 
According to the portion of the Handbook titled How to Become a Computer Systems Analyst, "[a] 
bachelor's degree in a computer or information science field is common, although not always a 
requirement. Some firms hire analysts with business or liberal arts degrees who have skills in 
information technology or computer programming." 5 The Handbook also states: "Although many 
computer systems analysts have technical degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement. Many 
analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." 6 
The Handbook therefore does not support the assertion that at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for these positions. As cited above, 
the Handbook specifically states that a bachelor's degree in a related field is "not always a 
requirement." The Handbook continues by indicating that there is a wide range of degrees that are 
acceptable for positions in this occupation, including general-purpose degrees in business and liberal 
arts. Again, we interpret the term "degree" to mean a degree in a specific specialty that directly relates 
to the proposed position. 7 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, a 
requirement for general and wide-ranging degrees such as in business and liberal arts strongly suggests 
that computer systems analysts positions are not categorically a specialty occupation. 8 Further, while 
the Handbook indicates that computer systems analysts without a computer-related degree obtain 
related skills and experience elsewhere, it does not quantify the skills and experience needed for entry 
into this occupation by individuals without a computer-science related degree. It further reports that 
many analysts have technical degrees. However, the Handbook does not specify a degree level ( e.g., 
associate's degree, baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. 
The Petitioner also referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Computer Systems Analysts" listed as SOC code 15-1121.00 for our consideration under this 
criterion. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a ceitified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) to demonstrate 
that it will pay the Beneficiary 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 experience and qualifications who 
are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, DOL, Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and­
information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Oct. 23, 2019). 
6 Id. 
7 See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
8 See id. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). See also Altimetrik Corp. v. Cissna, 
No. 18-10116, 2018 WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (the Handbook "makes it clear that a degree in a 
computer-related field is not required" for these positions, and therefore "USCTS [was] entitled to deference in its finding 
that systems analysts are not required to have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty"). 
3 
Matter of F-S-□ 
Though relevant, the information the Petitioner submitted from O*NET does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. 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. For example, the Specific Vocational Preparation 
(SVP) rating, which is defined as "the amount oflapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the 
techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a 
specific job-worker situation," cited within O*NET's Job Zone designates this position as having an 
SVP 7 < 8. This indicates that the occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of 
training. 9 While the SVP rating provides 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, formal education, and experience - and it does not specify the particular type 
of degree, if any, that a position would require. 10 The O*NET summary report for this occupation 
also does not specify that a degree is required, but instead states, "most of these occupations require a 
four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Similar to the SVP rating, 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. 
Further, we observe 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. The survey indicates that 33% of "respondents" claim to hold a bachelor's degree 
and 14% of "respondents" claim to hold a master's degree. However, the same survey indicates that 
compared to bachelor's degree respondents almost the same amount of respondents, 29%, reported 
possessing at most an associate's degree, and further, 24% are unaccounted for. 11 Regardless, a 
requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter authored by I ~ Associate 
Professor ii the Depirtment of Computer Systems Technology at the I . College of 
Technology In his letter, the professor (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify 
him to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) discusses the duties proposed for the 
Beneficiary; and (3) states that these duties require at least a bachelor's degree in electrical 
engineering, computer engineering, information systems, or a related field. We carefully evaluated 
the professor's assertions in support of the instant petition but find them insufficient. 
9 This training may be acquired in a school, work, military, institutional, or vocational environment. Specific vocational 
training includes: vocational education, apprenticeship training, in-plant training, on-the-job training, and essential 
experience in other jobs. 
1° For additional information. see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/ 
online/svp. 
11 Nor is it apparent that these individuals' credentials were hiring prerequisites. 
4 
Matter of F-S-□ 
The professor states that his assessment is based upon a letter from the Petitioner to USCIS "describing 
the position in technically-specific detail, and an enhanced supplemental job description from [the 
Petitioner] depicting the position in further meticulous detail (and of the quantitative skill-set required 
of a qualified candidate to perform the duties of the proffered position), and the required educational 
background for a candidate to hold the position." Nonetheless, he does not demonstrate in-depth 
knowledge of its operations or how the duties of the position would actually be performed in the 
context of its business enterprise. Notably, while he mentions the "HRIS systems," he does not discuss 
it in detail or provide an analysis of the requirements of the proffered position within the context of 
the systems. While we appreciate the professor's discussion of duties provided by the Petitioner, his 
analyses falls short of providing a meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually do in 
the proffered position and how those duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge. As a result, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the professor possessed the requisite information to adequately assess the nature of the position 
and appropriately determine the educational requirements of the position, based upon the job duties 
and level of responsibilities. 
Further, the professor's opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can determine 
that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. For instance, he does not reference, cite, or discuss any 
studies, surveys, industry publications, authoritative publications, or other sources of empirical 
information which he may have consulted to complete his evaluation, in order to arrive at his 
conclusions. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the opinion letter from I I is insufficient to 
satisfy the first criterion. Matter of Caron Int'!, 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."). 12 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2017) as 
relevant here. This case arises out of a different jurisdiction than the instant matter. 13 Nevertheless, 
even ifwe considered the logic underlying the matter, we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
First, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. discussed our reading of the Handbook's discussion of 
the entry requirements for positions located within a different and separate occupational category 
"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 specifically states that "many 
analysts have liberal arts degrees and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
12 We hereby incorporate our discussion of I Is letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
13 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 K-S-. 20 I&N 
Dec. at 719-20. 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. 
5 
Matter of F-S□ 
(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. Inc. 14 
The Petitioner also asserts that "[t]he specific specialty does not have to be in a single academic 
discipline, but it does have to represent a specialized body of knowledge." The Petitioner cites to 
Residential Finance Corp. v. US. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. 
Ohio 2012) for the proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation specific majors. What is required is an 
occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge and a prospective employee who has obtained 
the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." While we agree with this general 
proposition, we emphasize that a position must still satisfy the statutory "degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). In other 
words, the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must logically be read together with section 
214(i)(l) of the Act, as well as 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 15 Therefore, O*NET's reference to a 
bachelor's degree requirement, without more, is not sufficient to demonstrate that this position satisfies 
this criterion. 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance. 16 Again, we are not bound to follow the published 
decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. See K-S-, 20 
I&N Dec. at 719-20. It is also important to note that in a subsequent case reviewed in the same 
jurisdiction, the court agreed with our analysis of Residential Finance. See Health Carousel, LLC v. 
USCIS, No. 1:13-CV-23, 2014 WL 29591 (S.D. Ohio 2014). 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative, 
authoritative source to substantiate its assertion regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this 
particular position. Consequently, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
14 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guida!lce memo on HJB 
computer related positions" (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-
0142-H- l BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf. 
15 This regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must be construed in harmony with the thrust of the related 
provisions and with the statute as a whole. 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 statute 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 T&N Dec. 503 
(BIA 1996). 
16 The district judge's decision appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors made by the Director in the 
decision denying the petition. We further note that the Director's decision was not appealed to us. Based on the district 
court's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative 
process, we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision for many of the same reasons 
articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de !lovo review of the matter. 
6 
Matter of F-sO 
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) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which 
the Handbook, or other authoritative source, reports a requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. First, we note that some of the job postings do not appear to involve 
organizations similar to the Petitioner. For example, the Petitioner is a solar panel manufacturer, 
whereas the advertising organizations include: 
• Fleetcor - a company that specializes in payment solutions; 
• Amazon - a multinational technology company; and 
• Dechen Consulting Group Inc. - a company in the information technology and services 
industry. 
In addition, one of the postings appears to be for a staffing agency for which no information is provided 
regarding the hiring employer. The Petitioner did not supplement the record of proceedings to 
establish that these advertising organizations are similar. 
When determining whether the Petitioner and the organization share the same general characteristics, 
such factors may include information regarding the nature or type of organization, and, when pertinent, 
7 
Matter of F-sQ 
the particular scope of operations, as well as the level of revenue and staffing ( to list just a few elements 
that may be considered). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim that an organization is similar 
and conducts business in the same industry without providing a legitimate basis for such an assertion. 
Moreover, many of the advertisements do not appear to involve parallel positions. For example, one 
of the advertisements appears to advertise more senior, experienced employment than the proffered 
position. 17 Further, some of the postings do not include sufficient information about the tasks and 
responsibilities for the advertised positions. Thus, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that 
the primary duties and responsibilities of the advertised positions are parallel to those of the proffered 
position. 
In addition, some of the postings do not indicate that at least a bachelor's degree in a directly related 
specific specialty ( or its equivalent) is required. 18 For instance, several of the postings state that a 
general bachelor's degree in business administration is acceptable. 19 Overall, the job postings suggest, 
at best, that although a bachelor's degree is sometimes required for these positions, a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty ( or its equivalent) is not. 20 
As the documentation does not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 21 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 
17 For instance, the posting placed by Amazon states a requirement for a bachelor's degree and over two years of 
"professional experience in analytics, business analysis or comparable consumer analytics position." 
18 As discussed. the degree requirement set by the statutory and regulatory framework of the H-lB program is not just a 
bachelor's or higher degree, but a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the duties of the 
position. See section 214(i)(l)(b) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Further, a preference for a degree in a field is 
not necessarily an indication of a minimum requirement. 
19 A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates 
directly and closely to the position in question. There must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies 
and the position; thus, the mere requirement of a general degree, such as business administration, without further 
specification. does not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs .• 19 T&N Dec. 
558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what 
an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose 
bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a paiiicular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not 
justify a finding that a particular position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Co1p., 484 F.3d 
at 147. 
20 It must be noted that 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 
has not demonstrated what statistically valid inferences, if any, can be drawn from the adve1iisements with regard to 
determining the common educational requirements for entry into parallel positions in similar organizations. See generally 
Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research 186-228 ( 1995). Moreover, given that there is no indication that the 
advertisements were randomly selected, the validity of any such inferences could not be accurately determined even if the 
sampling unit were sufficiently large. See id. at 195-196 (explaining that "[r]andom selection is the key to [the] process 
[ of probability sampling]" and that "random selection offers access to the body of probability theory, which provides the 
basis for estimates of population parameters and estimates of error"). 
21 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. 
8 
Matter of F-sO 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 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). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner does not assert 
eligibility under this prong of the criterion; therefore, further discussion is unnecessary. The Petitioner 
has not satisfied the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 
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. 
The Petitioner asserts that it has been its "past employment practice to hire routinely professionals 
with at least a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, 
Information Systems, or a related field into the role of Business Analyst." In response to the Director's 
request for evidence, the Petitioner stated that it enclosed the resumes of past hires; however, upon 
review of the record, the resumes were not provided. Even if the Petitioner had enclosed the resumes 
of its employees, it must be noted that the evidentiary weight of a resume is generally insignificant as 
it represents a claim by an individual, rather than evidence to support that claim. 
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 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
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. 
9 
Matter of F-S~._ _ ____, 
While the Petitioner provided additional information in how the duties would be carried out, in some 
instances that information falls short of explaining what the Beneficiary will actually do on a day-to­
day basis in the proffered position. That is, the Petitioner has not explained in detail how tasks such 
as: 
• Leverage system capabilities according to business need 
• Collaborate on projects with different business users from Communications, Engineering, and 
IT teams 
• Apply digital communications methods such as http, ftp, and file sharing 
• Identify issues in existing system structure and create strategies for improvement 
• Apply concepts of probability, algorithmic thinking, and data analysis 
• Apply business requirements analyses to various projects 
• Communicate with business leaders about new system functionalities and identifying useful 
upgrades 
• Support major parts of reporting and key metrics by relying on numerical thinking and data 
analysis 
• Provide reports on data insights in order to help business leaders make major business 
decisions 
• Responsible for collecting, analyzing, and identifying trends in data 
• Apply concepts of data processing and coding to implement new systems 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. While a 
few related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently demonstrated how an established curriculum of 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. 
Moreover, the Beneficiary's proposed job duties include collaborations with "Communications, 
Engineering, and IT teams," but Petitioner has not identified the individuals the Beneficiary would 
work with or how they relate to his assignment. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the pos1t10n, 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 has not provided sufficient evidence 
that the duties require more than technical proficiency in the information technology field. Thus, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated 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). 
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. 
10 
Matter of F-sO 
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 the 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. 
Cite as Matter of F-S-□ ID# 4248413 (AAO Oct. 30, 2019) 
11