dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-L-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 26, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a project staffing and management consulting firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily as a "technical analyst" under the H-lB 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 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 Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
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 offered 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 A-L-, LLC 
(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. 1 
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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner initially provided the position's description with six bullet points, and expanded on 
those duties in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). For the sake of brevity, we will 
not quote the most recent version; however, we note that we have closely reviewed and considered the 
duties. For the reasons discussed below, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 3 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. 4 
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. 5 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 
1 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
2 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). 
3 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
4 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. 
5 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 fu lly competent level (Level TV). 
2 
Matter of A-L-, LLC 
occupational title "Computer Systems Analysts," corresponding to the Standard Occupational 
Classification code 15-1121. 6 
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." 7 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." 8 
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. 9 
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. 1° 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. 
On appeal the Petitioner argues that USCIS should apply the preponderance of the evidence standard 
to the information within the Handbook. We note that the preponderance standard applies to the 
persuasive nature of a petitioner's claims, and it does not apply to the documentary evidence an 
organization supplies in support of its claims. To clarify, the Petitioner states: "Please note that for 
the purposes of degree requirements, the Service should be looking at the preponderance of the 
evidence standard. The [Handbook] specifically states MOST Computer Systems Analysts have a 
6 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). 
7 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 Sept. 26, 2019). 
8 Id. 
9 See Royal Siam, 484 F.3d at 147. 
10 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 A-L-, LLC 
Bachelor's degree in a Computer-related field. Here, 'most' means more than 50%." 11 We are not 
persuaded that we should apply the standard of proof applicable to the Petitioner, to the content within 
the Handbook. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first criterion's requirements relying on 
this authoritative source alone. 12 
We are also unpersuaded by the Petitioner's position that "a degree in a computer-related field is 
specific enough for the purposes of [the] specialty occupation and the degree requirement." It remains 
that a petitioner must demonstrate how each field-in this case, each field discussed within the 
Handbook-is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the 
required "body of highly specialized knowledge" is essentially an amalgamation of these different 
specialties. 13 The overly broad description within the Handbook of any computer-related field is 
insufficient to meet the higher standards of the H-1B program. 
Finally, the Petitioner restates the arguments regarding DOL's Occupational Information Network 
(O*NET) that it presented before the Director. The Director discussed this evidence and determined 
it did not establish that the Petitioner had satisfied this criterion. The Petitioner's appeal brief does 
not explain any error on the Director's part as it pertains to the O*NET; instead it provided an 
incomplete sentence in addition to some identical text it presented in its RFE response, stating: "The 
Service's denial of the underlying H-1B petition disregards the evidence, including both expert 
testimony and[ .... ]" From the incomplete sentence we are unable to ascertain the Petitioner's 
appellate arguments pertaining to the O*NET. It is therefore unclear what error the Director could 
have committed in her determination that the O*NET information was insufficient. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not discuss expert testimony under this criterion before the Director, nor did the denial 
decision mention any such testimony. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from a probative source to substantiate its assertion 
regarding the minimum requirement for entry into this particular position. Therefore, it has not 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
11 We note that the preponderance is commonly referred to as establishing a claim at a level of surety that is more than 50 
percent. Matter of Chawathe, 25 T&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
12 Innova Solutions, Inc. v. Baran, No. 17-CV-03674-VKD, 2019 WL 3753334, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (holding 
that even when the Handbook states that "most" of those in an occupation have a bachelor's degree, but some do not, 
USCIS correctly observes that not all positions within an occupation are the same and at least some positions may be 
performed without a qualifying degree). 
13 Section 2 l 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). While the statutory "the" and the regulatory "a" both denote a singular 
"specialty," we do not so narrowly interpret these provisions to exclude positions from qualifying as specialty occupations 
if they permit, as a minimum entry requirement, degrees in more than one closely related specialty. See section 
214(i)(l )(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(h)(4)(ii). This also includes even seemingly disparate specialties providing, 
again, the evidence of record establishes how each acceptable, specific field of study is directly related to the duties and 
responsibilities of the particular position. 
4 
Matter of A-L-, LLC 
B. Second Criterion 
Although the Petitioner mentioned this criterion tacitly in the appeal brief: it did not provide a 
meaningful discussion of the issues in greater detail. We therefore consider its claims under this 
criterion to be abandoned. 14 
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. 15 
Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's claimed self-imposed requirements, then any 
individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to perform any occupation 
as long as the Petitioner created a token degree requirement. 16 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. 
Before the Director, the Petitioner submitted job postings for similar positions and Linkedln profiles 
for its employees. The Director explained why she determined this evidence was insufficient to satisfy 
this criterion's requirements. On appeal, the Petitioner discusses an opinion letter it offered in its RFE 
response as well as three job announcements it submitted at that same time. 
Regarding the opinion letter froml I an associate professor with the University ofD 
Florida, the Petitioner did not previously claim this evidence as applying to the third criterion in the 
proceedings before the Director. Issues that were neither raised nor considered in the previous 
proceedings are not properly before us. 17 Although we maintain de nova review and a petitioner may 
supplement previous eligibility assertions, it should not raise previously unclaimed eligibility issues 
14 The mention of an error in an appeal brief, absent any specific argument as to how the previous entity was in error, is 
insufficient to present the matter for adjudication on appeal. Zivojinovich v. Barner, 525 F.3d 1059, 1062 (11th Cir. 2008) 
(citing Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc., 549 F.2d 314, 324 (5th Cir.1977)); Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 
1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir.1989) (stating that passing references to issues are insufficient to raise a claim for appeal, and 
such issues are deemed abandoned); Hershinow v. Bonamarte, 735 F.2d 264, 266 (7th Cir.1984) (the appellate body will 
not consider issues presented in a perfunctory and underdeveloped manner in the brief). 
15 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. A petitioner must demonstrate that its imposed requirements are genuine. Sagarwala 
v. Cissna, No. CV 18-2860 (RC). 2019 WL 3084309, at *9 (D.D.C. July 15, 2019). Cf Michael Hertz Assocs .. 19 I&N 
Dec. at 560 (finding: (1) the requirement of a degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer 
perceives to be a higher caliber employee, does not establish eligibility; and (2) an analysis of eligibility includes not only 
the actual requirements specified by the petitioner but also those required by the specific industry in question. to determine. 
in part, the validity of a petitioner's requirements). 
16 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
17 In Re Jimenez-Santillano. 21 T&N Dec. 567, 577 n.2(BIA 1996) ( citing Matter of Edwards, 20 T&N Dec. 191. 196 n.4 
(BIA 1990); Matter of Garcia-Re.ves. 19 T&N Dec. 830, 832 (BIA 1988). Eligibility issues should be made on the record 
within the previous proceedings, or such matters will generally not be among the topics available for appeal. 
5 
Matter of A-L-, LLC 
on appeal. 18 While we will discuss this letter under the fourth criterion, I l's opinion will not 
factor into our analysis under this criterion. Likewise, the Petitioner did not contest the Director's 
conclusion that the material from Linkedln was deficient. As a result it has abandoned its claims on 
this issue. 19 
On the job announcements the Petitioner submitted in the RFE response, we observe several issues 
leading us to conclude that this material is also insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden under this 
criterion. First, each announcement essentially provides the job title-a title different than the offered 
position in the petition-and the position's prerequisites. Lacking are the position's responsibilities 
such that we might compare the duties to the proffered position to evaluate the similarities. Second, 
each announcement included an experiential requirement that the Petitioner did not folly discuss 
within the petition, which could indicate the job announcements were for more senior positions. 
Upon farther review of the Petitioner's statements, we question what its actual requirements are for 
the proffered position. Within the initial filing, it indicated that it required the specified degree and 
experience. However, it its RFE response, the Petitioner did not include any mention of required 
experience even though it had indicated this position's duties were extremely complex. Then within 
the appeal brief: the Petitioner again mentions a work experience requirement. The job announcements 
it offered also each required several years of work experience. We note that the Petitioner indicated 
that these job announcements were "postings for the same or similar positions at [the Petitioner]." 
Based on the inconsistent nature of the Petitioner's statements and evidence, we visited its website. A 
review of a position that included "Technical Analyst" as part of the job title revealed the Petitioner 
required more than five years of experience for that position. 20 Even without the information from the 
Petitioner's website, its inconsistent claims and evidence serve to undermine the probative nature of 
its assertions relating to the proffered position's prerequisites. 21 
Without more, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. 
Therefore, it has not satisfied the third criterion at 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. 
18 See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 1988). 
19 Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 n.2 (BIA 2019) (finding that an issue not appealed is deemed as abandoned). 
2° Careers, Alderson Loop (Sept. 26, 2019), https://www.aldersonloop.com/careers/2019/9/6/charles-river-technical­
analyst-baltimore-md. 
21 See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (finding that a filing party must resolve where the truth lies 
with independent and objective evidence when it provides inconsistent material). We further note that if the proffered 
position's actual prerequisites included experience, this could call into question the correctrJess of the Petitioner's 
designated wage rage on the LCA. 
6 
Matter of A-L-, LLC 
Within its RFE response under this criterion, the Petitioner presented a more detailed pos1t10n 
description as well as the opinion letter from I Although the Director discussed the position 
description, the denial decision lacked sufficient analysis oti Is conclusions. 
Even though the Petitioner provided a more detailed job description in response to the RFE, its account 
did not demonstrate a nexus between the duties and a bachelor's degree in the fields it mandated. 
Instead, the Petitioner essentially provided the duties and stated that such functions mandate that a 
candidate attain a degree in one of the specified fields of study. The Petitioner's description appeared 
less specialized and less complex than the duties for the Computer Systems Analysts occupation as 
described in the Handbook. This appears to indicate that the offered position may be among those that 
do not necessarily require a technical degree, but it may be one that is similar to those only requiring 
a liberal arts degree with some additional technical training. 
Moving tg Is letter, we also find his opinion to be lacking. I ~ analysis offered 
mostly conclusory assertions pertaining to the connection between the duties and how they required a 
bachelor's degree in a particular specialty. For exampleJ lstated "this position's duties are 
firmly within the scope of the specialized topics covered in a standard Bachelor's-degree program in 
Computer Science (CS) or a closely related field .... " and that the position's duties "fit within the 
specialized topics covered in a standard Bachelor's-level CS or related degree curriculum .... " 
The fact that a position's duties are the type one might encounter within a particular curriculum, does 
not equate to that position demanding such a degreed program to perform those duties. It is reasonable 
to expect that a university might include such topics within its educational program, even at the 
graduate level. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that simply because an institution of 
higher education includes coursework with a specific program, that this should satisfy its burden of 
demonstrating this particular position mandates at least a bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, in a 
specific specialty area. 
Additionally,I I theorizes that "[i]f any of this position's duties are within the scope of the 
core topics covered in a standard Bachelor's-level curriculum in CS or a closely related field, then the 
position must be considered sufficiently specialized and complex as to require a Bachelor's degree in 
CS or a related field." Based on this theory, he concludes that this position's duties, falling within the 
scope of a bachelor's-level curriculum in computer science, "is a strong demonstration that this 
position requires a Bachelor's degree in CS or a closely related field." 
We do not find I l's theory to bear out. For instance, his theory does not account for the 
possibility that some of the position's duties could fall under both an associate's-level program as well 
as a bachelor's-level one. To offer an alternate example, the Handbook entry for Paralegals and Legal 
Assistants details duties that "are within the scope of the core topics covered" in a curriculum for 
Lawyers. Yet, we would not conclude that the Paralegals and Legal Assistants occupational category 
would mandate the same high-level education that the Lawyers category requires. 22 
22 Compare the education for Paralegals and Legal Assistants https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/paralegals-and-legal­
assistants.htm#tab-4 to that for Lawyers https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/lawyers.htm#tab-4 in the Handbook (accessed on 
Sept. 26, 2019)). 
7 
Matter of A-L-, LLC 
This opm10n letter essentially offers conclusory assertions that the position's duties mandate a 
bachelor's degree in computer science or a related specialized field. However, USCIS is not required 
to accept primarily conclusory assertions, even from a purported expert. 23 Where an opinion letter does 
not cite to the source of its contents, and is not corroborated by other probative evidence, but instead 
generally offers conclusory and unsubstantiated statements, USCIS is justified in determining that 
such material is not persuasive. 24 USCIS may, in its discretion, use material submitted as expert 
testimony as advisory opinions. 25 However, we are ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding eligibility for the benefit sought. 26 The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as this decision has done 
above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the Petitioner's eligibility claims.27 
USCIS may ascribe less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information, 
or is in any way questionable. 28 Thus, the content of an authors' statements and how they became aware 
of industry hiring standards are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by a petitioner in support of a petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence. 
Without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with 
specialized and complex duties as such a position within this occupational category would likely be 
classified at a higher level, requiring a substantially higher prevailing wage. 29 Although the Petitioner 
asserts that the nature of the specific duties is specialized and complex, the record lacks sufficient 
evidence to support this claim. Therefore, the Petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence to satisfy 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
E. Definitional Requirement 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act defines a specialty occupation as "an occupation that requires ... [a] 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and ... 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 governing regulation also requires a petitioner to 
23 1756, Inc. v. Att); Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). 
24 Sagarwala, No. CV 18-2860 (RC), 2019 WL 3084309 at *6. 
25 See Matter of Caron International, 19 T&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
26 Id. 
27 See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 T&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expelt opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). We note that one element of the V-K- decision was ovenuled within Matter of Z-Z-O-, 
26 T&N Dec. 586 (BIA 2015). The limit to the ovenuling nature of Z-Z-O- is illustrated within a footnote in which the 
BIA stated that other than the standard of review for predictive factual findings, it did not address and would not disturb 
other conclusions in the V-K- decision. Z-Z-O-, 26 l&N Dec. at 593 n.3. Consequently, the portion of the V-K- decision 
cited above remains effective. 
28 Caron International. 19 l&N Dec. at 795. 
29 For example, a Level IV (fully competent) position is designated by DOL for employees who "use advanced skills and 
diversified knowledge to solve unusual and complex problems" and requires a significantly higher wage. For additional 
information regarding wage levels as defined by DOL, 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://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdti'NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ I I_ 2009 .pdf 
8 
Matter of A-L-, LLC 
demonstrate that a petition "involves a specialty occupation as defined in section 214(i)(l) of the 
Act." 30 As a result, an H-1B petition cannot be approved unless a petitioner demonstrates that a 
proffered position satisfies this statutory definition; not even if it demonstrates it has satisfied one of 
the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
From this, we reason that the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) should be read logically as being 
necessary-but not necessarily sufficient-to meet the statutory and regulatory definition of a 
specialty occupation. To otherwise interpret this section as stating the necessary, but not necessarily 
sufficient conditions are adequate to qualify would result in some positions meeting a condition under 
the criteria, but not under the statutory definition. 31 To avoid this erroneous result, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) must therefore be read as providing supplemental criteria that must be met in 
accordance with, and not as alternatives to, the statutory definition of a specialty occupation. This 
results in a multi-part analysis to determine whether a particular position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation. 
Accordingly, were a petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to satisfy one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), we would then evaluate whether it had also satisfied the statutory definition. We 
conclude that in addition to not meeting any of the regulatory criteria, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated the position in this petition qualifies as a specialty occupation under the statutory 
definition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-L-, LLC, ID# 4663920 (AAO Sept. 26, 2019) 
30 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(2); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l)(ii)(B)(l). 
31 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387; Sagarwala, No. CV 18-2860 (RC), 2019 WL 3084309, at *5. 
9