dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9436831 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 29, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "UI developer" under the H-lB 
nonirnrnigrant 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 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 evidence of record 
does not establish that: (1) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation; and (2) the 
Beneficiary qualifies to perform services in a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 
2012) . Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. SPECIALTY OCCUPATION 
A. Legal Framework 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered position 
must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
B. 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 
1. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), 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 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. 3 
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 maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category 
designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered 
position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of 
occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to 
2 
The Petitioner 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 "Operations Research Analysts," corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification code 15-2031.4 According to the portion of the Handbook titled How to Become an 
Operations Research Analyst, "some schools offer bachelor's and advanced degree programs in 
operations research, some analysts have degrees in other technical or quantitative fields, such as 
engineering, computer science, analytics, or mathematics." 5 The Handbook indicates further that 
courses in various fields such as engineering, mathematics, computer science, economics, and political 
science are useful because "operations research is a multidisciplinary field with a wide variety of 
applications." 6 Because the Handbook recognizes this occupation as multidisciplinary and one that 
can be performed by people with various degrees, it does not support a conclusion that this is an 
occupational group for which normally the minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In the absence of support from the Handbook, the Petitioner submitted DOL's Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) summary report for Operations Research Analysts. The Summary 
Report provides general information regarding the Operations Research Analysts occupation; 
however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding the educational requirements for 
Operations Research Analysts positions. For example, the Operation Research Analysts occupation 
is designated as Job Zone Five, a zone for which "most ... occupations require graduate school." 
However, the O*NET does not specify what field, if any, that the occupation requires the degree to be 
in.7 
The Petitioner also referenced two U.S. district court decisions as support for its argument that a 
petitioner may allow multiple specialized fields to demonstrate eligibility for a position without 
compromising the position's status as a specialty occupation. In contrast to the broad precedential 
authority of the case law of a U.S. circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published decision of 
a U.S. district court even in matters arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 
715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given 
due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter 
oflaw. Id. 
The Petitioner cited to Next Generation Tech., Inc., in which the court 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 "Operations Research 
Analysts" category designated by the Petitioner in the LCA relating to this case. Further, as recognized 
submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position would n01mally have a minimum, specialty 
degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
4 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Id. 
6 Id. 
7 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/help/online/svp. 
3 
by another court, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for certain 
professions, many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 8 See Innova Sols., Inc. 
v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech., Inc.). 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." Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
"Accordingly, [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." See Innova Sols., Inc. 
2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a 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. 9 Here, the 
Handbook does not describe the normal minimum educational requirement for the occupation in a 
categorical manner. Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. 
The Petitioner also cited to Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 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 attained 
the credentialing indicating possession of that knowledge." We agree with the aforementioned 
proposition that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important." Here, as will 
be explained below, the Petitioner has not adequately explained that the proffered position requires 
highly specialized knowledge and attainment of at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter authored b~ rcAssociate 
Professor inlthe De~artment of Computer Systems Technology at thel 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 computer information 
systems, or a related field. We carefully evaluated the professor's assertions in support of the instant 
petition but find them insufficient. 
The professor states that his assessment is based upon a letter from the Petitioner "outlining the job 
duties of the position and the required educational background for a candidate to hold the position; a 
supplemental, detailed job description issued by [the Petitioner] outlining the percentage of time to be 
8 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0142, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ''Guidance 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. 
4 
spent by [the Beneficiary] on particular job duties; and the academic documentation of the candidate." 
Nonetheless, he does not demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the Petitioner's operations or how the 
duties of the position would actually be performed in the context of its business enterprise. Notably, 
while he mentions "the Cross Consulting Group-Enterprise Operations service line," he does not 
discuss it in detail or provide an analysis of the requirements of the proffered position within the 
context of this department. While we appreciate the professor's discussion of duties provided by the 
Petitioner, his analysis 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. 
Moreover, the professor concludes that the proffered position "is a highly specialized position" and 
the job duties "involve highly technical, complex functions" that require a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty. However, it is unclear if the professor was informed of the Petitioner's attestation 
on the LCA that the proffered position was a Level II wage position. A Level II position indicates that 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perform only moderately complex tasks that require limited 
exercise of judgment compared to other positions within the same occupation. 10 The omission of a 
discussion or acknowledgement of the wage designation diminishes the evidentiary value of this 
opinion as it does not appear to be based on a complete understanding of the proffered position. 
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 .__ ______ ___.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."). 11 
1° For additional information, see 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/NPWH C _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf. 
We note that a low wage-level designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty 
occupation, just as a high wage-level designation does not definitively establish such a classification. In certain 
occupations ( e.g., doctors or lawyers), a Level TT position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level TV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation 
qualifies as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but 
is not itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act. 
11 We hereby incorporate our discussion of I l's letter into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
5 
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. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
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 the 
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 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) 
(quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these 
"factors" to inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook ( or other independent, authoritative source) reports an industry-wide 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 referenced the opinion letter froml I In his 
letter, he states that "it is a common industry practice for information technology consulting firms to hire 
individuals in positions such as that of the Senior Consultant herein, and in similar quantitative 
information systems positions, from bachelor's-level programs in Computer Information Systems or a 
related field." However,~------~ 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 reach his conclusions. As such, it remains unclear howl !reached 
his conclusions as to the industry educational requirements for the proffered position. 
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). 
6 
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. 
We reviewed the Petitioner's statements regarding the proffered pos1t10n; however, while the 
Petitioner provided additional information in how the duties would be carried out in response to the 
Director's request for evidence, 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: 
• Unlock the value of technology investments throughout the enterprise as discrete services or 
comprehensive custom solutions. 
• Conduct workshops, site surveys, proposal presentation, and stakeholder-interviews to 
expedite the digitization of legacy business processes. 
• Identify resources, estimate development effort, create project charters, schedules, and plans. 
• Define project tasks, allocate resources, and monitor project progress. 
• Engage appropriate stakeholders to receive sign-off on deliverables and update project plan. 
• Work with clients to understand explainable AI, data privacy, bias, and regulations within 
varied industries. 
• Build business case and drive towards decision by demonstrating net-gain in value for both 
clients and internal stakeholders. 
• Secure funding from internal leadership to realize concept into a product. 
• Convene with business and technology teams in exhaustive planning sessions to confirm 
project planning strategies, plan resources, tools, budget, delivery schedule, and tracking tasks 
to be completed. 
• Perform assessments of existing information systems and identify gaps between business 
requirements and current system capabilities. 
• Estimate time and resources needed for the development work. 
require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
Notably, the Beneficiary's proposed job duties include collaborations with "Quality Assurance teams," 
"business and technology teams" and "cross-functional technical and non-technical teams." 
However, the Petitioner has not identified the individuals the Beneficiary would work with or how 
they relate to his assignment. 
The listed job duties and tasks, when read in combination with the Petitioner's Level II-designation 
on the LCA, suggest that this particular position is not so complex or unique relative to other operations 
research analysts that the duties can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree or 
higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The Petitioner stated that it requires a bachelor's degree 
in computer information systems, or a related field. However, while a few related courses may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated 
7 
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. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that .__ ______ __,'s opinion letter, discussed above, 
satisfies the second prong of the second criterion. The Petitioner specifically emphasizes I I I ~'s opinion that the proffered position "involves highly specialized job duties in the 
sophisticated and complex fields of business process analysis, information technology management, 
systems design and analysis, and management information systems, and entails the application of 
analytical and computations skill in assessing and implementing technological solutions for client data 
systems." However, as noted above, there is no indication that.__ ______ __,has conducted any 
research or studies pertinent to the educational requirements for such positions, and no indication of 
recognition by professional organizations that he is an authority on those specific requirements. 
Additionally, as noted above, the Handbook observes that a bachelor's degree is not necessarily 
required for entry into the particular position and, even when it is, degrees in disparate fields such as 
mathematics and political science may qualify applicants. Given that I I's opinion 
is not substantiated by objective research or studies relevant to the proffered position, and the extent 
to which his opinion is not in accord with other information in the record, it bears minimal probative 
value. See Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
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 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). 
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. 
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 submits copies of four of its job postings for "similar roles" as the proffered position. 
Upon review, we observe that three of the postings state that a bachelor's degree in business 
administration is acceptable. 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 
8 
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 farther specification, does 
not establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 
558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The mere requirement of a college degree for the sake of general education, 
or to obtain what an employer perceives to be a higher caliber employee, also does not establish 
eligibility."). Thus, while a general-purpose bachelor's degree may be a legitimate prerequisite for a 
particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147. 
The Petitioner again asserts on appeal that I ts opinion letter satisfies the third 
criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner emphas~iz_e_sl ______ .,___~l's conclusion that: 
[g]iven the computational, technical, and quantitative complexity in the subject role of 
Senior Consultant with [the Petitioner], it is typical for employers of such individuals 
to require that professionals working in such quantitative positions in the field of 
information technology consulting have at least a bachelor's degree in Computer 
Information Systems or a related field. 
However, contrary tol ts opinion, the job postings discussed above establish that 
the Petitioner will accept a general degree or a general-purpose degree in business administration for 
senior consultant positions like the proffered position. Again, given the extent to which I I 
I Is opinion is not in accord with other information in the record, it bears minimal probative 
value. See Matter o_f Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
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). 
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. 
For the reasons similar to those discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F .R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2), 
we find 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 also incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis regarding the duties of the proffered position, and the designation of the 
position in the LCA as a Level II position relative to others within the same occupational category. 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied any 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. 
9 
II. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary would not be qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position if the job had been determined to be a specialty occupation. However, a 
beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a 
specialty occupation. As discussed in this decision, the proffered position does not require a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Therefore, we need not and 
will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. 
10