dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 4688392 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 25, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S .C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . 
The California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that (1) the certified Labor Condition Application (LCA) supported the petition; (2) the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and (3) the Beneficiary was qualified to perform the duties 
of the proffered position . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Upon 
de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LCA 
The purpose of the LCA wage requirement is "to protect U.S . workers ' wages and eliminate any 
economic incentive or advantage in hiring temporary foreign workers." 2 It also serves to protect H-lB 
workers from wage abuses . A petitioner submits the LCA to the Department of Labor (DOL) to 
demonstrate that it will pay an H-lB worker the higher of either the prevailing wage for the 
occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid by the employer to other 
employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. 
§ 655.731(a). While DOL certifies the LCA, USCIS determines whether the LCA's content 
corresponds with the H-IB petition. See 20 C.F.R. § 655. 705(b) ("DHS determines whether the 
petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, .... "). 
In its LCA, the Petitioner selected the Level I wage as consonant with the job requirements, necessary 
experience, education, special skills /other requirements, and supervisory duties of the proffered 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
2 See Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-lB Visas in Specialty 
Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United 
States, 65 Fed. Reg. 80,110, 80,110-11 (proposed Dec. 20, 2000) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 655-56). 
pos1t10n. The Director determined the Level I wage was inappropriate by comparing the 
Petitioner-indicated duties directly with the generic definition of a Level I wage provided in the 
Department of Labor (DOL) guidance. As noted by the Petitioner, that is not the correct comparison. 
The proper comparison is between the Petitioner-indicated job attributes and requirements and those 
associated with the appropriate O*NET occupation. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., 
Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009). 3 
After performing the five-step wage determination process outlined in the DOL guidance, we find the 
Petitioner's selection of a Level I wage to be correct. 
As the proffered position does not require experience, education, special skills or supervisory duties 
beyond those listed in the related O*NET occupation, it is properly classified as a Level I wage. The 
Petitioner has demonstrated that the submitted LCA corresponds to the petition. Therefore, that 
portion of the Director's decision is hereby withdrawn. 
II. 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 
3 DOL's 2009 guidance describes Level I as follows: 
Level I ( entry) wage rates are assigned to job offers for beginning level employees who have only a basic 
understanding of the occupation. These employees perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, 
exercise of judgment. The tasks provide experience and familiarization with the employer's methods, 
practices, and programs. The employees may perform higher level work for training and developmental 
purposes. These employees work under close supervision and receive specific instructions on required 
tasks and results expected. Their work is closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy. Statements that 
the job offer is for a research fellow, a worker in training, or an internship are indicators that a Level I 
wage should be considered. 
2 
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. Chertojf, 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. Proffered Position 
The Petitioner, a computer services company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a business analyst. 
The Petitioner provided a description of the proffered position in its initial letter of support and 
expanded on those duties in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). The second 
description provided a percentage breakdown of the time the Beneficiary would devote to each task. 
For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the duty descriptions; however, we have closely reviewed 
and considered the duties. The Petitioner stated that the position requires at least a bachelor's degree 
or equivalent in information management, information technology, business analytics, or a related 
field. 
C. Analysis 
We have reviewed the entire record of proceedings before us. For the reasons discussed below, we 
have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. 4 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. 5 
1. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I) requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the wide 
variety of occupations that it addresses. 6 The Petitioner designated the proffered position on the LCA 7 
4 Although some aspects of the regulatory criteria may overlap, we will address each of the criteria individually. 
5 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. 
6 The Handbook may be accessed at https://www.bls.gov/ooh. 
7 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
3 
as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1199 "Computer Occupations, All Other" 
occupation. 
There are occupational categories the Handbook does not cover in much, if any, detail. 8 Thus, the 
Handbook's narrative reports that there are some occupations for which only summary data is 
prepared, and detailed occupational profiles are not developed. 9 The Handbook suggests that for at 
least some of the occupations, little meaningful information could be developed. 
Accordingly, in certain instances, the Handbook is not determinative. When the Handbook does not 
support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the statutory and regulatory 
provisions of a specialty occupation, it is the Petitioner's burden to provide probative evidence (e.g., 
documentation from other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular 
position in question qualifies as a specialty occupation. When more than one authoritative source 
exists, we will consider and weigh all the evidence presented to determine whether the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner asserted that the duties of the proffered position are consistent with 
the duties of the "Computer Systems Engineers/ Architects" occupation under SOC code 15-1199 .02. The 
Petitioner referenced DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report for this 
occupational category as its alternative source for consideration. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding 
the educational requirements for these positions. 
We have reviewed the O*NET Summary Report but find in unpersuasive. First, the Specialized 
Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of "7 < 8" cited within O*NET does not establish that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. An SVP rating of 7 to less than ("<") 8 indicates that the 
occupation requires "over 2 years up to and including 4 years" of training. However, while the SVP 
rating indicates the total number of years of vocational preparation required for a particular position, 
it is important to note that it does not describe how those years are to be divided among training, 
experience, and formal education which, by definition, includes high school education and commercial 
or shop training. The SVP rating also does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a 
position would require. 10 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid 
by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
8 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dep't of Labor, Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited Mar. 24, 2020). 
9 We note that occupational categories for which the Handbook only includes summary data includes a range of 
occupations, including for example, postmasters and mail superintendents; agents and business managers of artists, 
performers, and athletes; farm and home management advisors; audio-visual and multimedia collections specialists; clergy; 
merchandise displayers and window trimmers; radio operators; first-line supervisors of police and detectives; crossing 
guards; travel guides; agricultural inspectors, as well as others. 
1° For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp (last visited Mar. 24, 2020). 
4 
Next, we will address DOL's designation in the summary report of the occupation as a Job Zone Four. 
Similar to the SVP rating, the summary report does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job 
Zone Four occupations must be directly related to the duties performed. 
Finally, we note that the summary report provides the educational requirements of "respondents," but 
does not account for 100% of the "respondents." The respondents' positions within the occupation 
are not distinguished by career level ( e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Additionally, the graph 
in the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. 11 For all of these reasons, O*NET is not sufficient to establish the proffered position 
as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner provides an opinion authored by I I a professor at the Ouniversity of 
.__ ___ _.I In his letter,~------~: (1) describes the credentials that he asserts qualify him 
to opine upon the nature of the proffered position; (2) references the duties proposed for the 
Beneficiary; and (3) states that those duties require at least a bachelor's degree in an appropriate 
computing or related technical or analytical field. We carefully evaluated~------~ s 
assertions in support of the instant petition but, for the following reasons, determined his letter is not 
persuasive. 
First,.__ ______ _.indicates that "the subject position of 'Business Analyst' cannot be properly 
performed without bachelor's level training in Information Management, Information Management [sic], 
Business Analytics, or a related field." 12 The professor bases his opinions on the Petitioner's description 
of the position's duties, the Petitioner's stated educational requirements, the Beneficiary's academic 
credentials, and his own research "regarding the issues discussed herein." However, the professor did 
not specifically discuss what his independent research entailed, nor was his research documentation 
provided in support of the petition. For instance, he relies on the O*NET Summary Report, noting 
that the duties of the proffered position comport to this occupational category, and that "74% of 
respondents within this occupational category possess at least a bachelor's degree." As discussed 
above, however, the report does not indicate that the education level for the respondents must be in a 
specific specialty. Moreover, it is unclear from the report whether the respondents are entry-level, 
mid-level, or senior-level within the field, or that their credentials were hiring prerequisites. 
Consequently, we findl l's reliance on the O*NET summary report unpersuasive. 
Moreover, while we acknowledge I I's references to the description of the duties of the 
proffered position, and have considered his statement that he conducted research into the Petitioner's 
products and services (he references the Petitioner's website in his opinion), we nonetheless find many 
of his assertions conclusory and based on readings of the Petitioner's own statements rather than on 
conclusions he reached on his own. 13 In other words, we question his familiarity with the 
Beneficiary's duties as they would actually be performed. For example, we observe that I I 
11 Nor is it apparent that these individuals' credentials were hiring prerequisites. 
12 We note that ~-----~repeats the field of "Information Management" twice in various instances throughout 
his evaluation and omits the field oflnformation Technology, which, according to the Petitioner, was an acceptable field 
of study. 
13 We further note that on page two of the opinion, he states that his "review of the nature of Weir's business" has fully 
prepared him with sufficient information to provide a thorough and informed evaluation. (Emphasis added). "Weir" is 
not the Petitioner, nor is it an entity otherwise involved in this petition. 
5 
discussed the Beneficiary's work with the Petitioner by repeating several of the stated duties and 
offering conclusions about their minimum educational requirements. For example, he concluded that 
a specific area, Identity and Access Management (1AM), also called identity management (IdM), "is 
a specialized and critical area of IT practice and one that is increasingly relevant to companies across 
all sectors that need to maintain the security of their IT systems" and that the complex demands of this 
area, as well as the other stated duties of the position, "would require at least a bachelor's degree in a 
relevant field." While he attempts to offer some commentary on the various duties he discussed, the 
basis for his comments is not clear, and his level of familiarity of how such duties require at least a 
bachelor's degree in a relevant field is unclear. Finally, we note that he alternates between requiring 
a degree "in a relevant field" and degrees in specific fields, without explaining the basis for such 
conclusions. His opinion does not relate his conclusion to specific, concrete aspects of the Petitioner's 
business operations to demonstrate a sound factual basis for the conclusion about the educational 
requirements for the particular position here at issue. 
We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord 
with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept 9r may gjye )es, 
weight to that evidence. Id. Consistent with Matter of Caron, we decline to assignl._ ______ ..Jb 
letter any significant weight. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational category for 
which the Handbook, or another authoritative source, indicates that the normal minimum requirement for 
entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The record lacks sufficient 
evidence to support a finding that the particular position proffered here would normally have such a 
minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
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 concentrates on 
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 establish that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed 
6 
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)). 
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. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's 
professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, 
the Petitioner did not submit any letters or affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's 
industry attesting that such firms "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
The Petitioner submitted job vacancy announcements for our consideration under this prong. To be 
relevant for this consideration, the job vacancy announcements must advertise "parallel positions," 
and the announcements must have been placed by organizations that (1) conduct business in the 
Petitioner's industry and (2) are also "similar" to the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner asks us to 
take administrative notice of the fact that the postings are for parallel position within the Petitioner's 
industry. Upon review, however, the submitted job vacancy announcements do not satisfy that 
threshold. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the primary duties and responsibilities of the 
advertised positions are parallel to those of the proffered position. For example, many of the advertised 
positions require significant work experience - a requirement the Petitioner does not mandate for the 
proffered position - which raises questions as to whether these positions' duties and responsibilities 
actually parallel those of the proffered position. 14 One advertisement requires "9 years of experience," 
and another requires "5+ years' experience in application development, system analysis, application 
architecture and/or system configuration support roles." Upon review, all the submitted postings 
require a minimum of 2 years of experience in addition to a bachelor's degree. 
Nor did the Petitioner submit sufficient evidence to establish that these advertising companies are 
"similar" to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a "computer services" company with 125 employees. 
However, the Petitioner submitted job announcements placed by, inter alia, one of the largest defense 
contractor companies in the country, an IT consulting and staffing services company, and various 
recruitment firms who posted the vacancy announcements on behalf of undisclosed clients. As a 
result, most of the advertisements do not provide sufficient information about the businesses seeking 
to hire for the advertised positions, and thus we are unable to ascertain the nature of their businesses 
to conduct a legitimate comparison of the advertisers to the Petitioner. 
For all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that these job vacancy announcements are 
relevant. Even if that threshold had been met, we would still find that they did not satisfy this prong 
of the second criterion, as they do not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the 
equivalent, is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
14 The Petitioner classified the proffered position as a Level I, entry-level position on the LCA, and contested the Director's 
contrary finding on appeal. For the reasons set forth earlier in this decision, we agreed with the Petitioner's Level I 
classification of the position and withdrew the Director's finding. As a result, it is unclear how an entry-level position can 
be considered parallel to the positions in the submitted postings given their extensive experience requirements. 
7 
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. 15 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. 16 
We again tum to.__ ______ ____. s opinion letter, which states: "I believe that it is a general 
practice for a complex international technology services company (such as the employer) to require 
that their Business Analyst possess a bachelor's-level background in Information Management, 
Information Management, [sic], Business Analytics, or a related field." His letter does not substantiate 
his conclusions, such that we can conclude that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof. Here, the 
professor 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 arrive at this 
conclusion. His level of knowledge of the hiring practices of similar companies is not substantiated 
in his opinion, and we again find his assertions unpersuasive . .__ _______ _. asserts a general 
industry educational standard for the proffered position without referencing any supporting authority 
or any empirical basis for the pronouncement. 
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). 
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. On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest specifically contest the Director's findings under 
this prong, and simply asserts that its detailed description of duties, its organization chart, and the sample 
work product of the Beneficiary satisfy the requirements of this criterion. 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's description of the proposed position and observe that this description 
presents a broad overview of a business analyst position. While we note the Petitioner's multiple 
descriptions of the duties, we find that the descriptions do not adequately convey the level of complexity 
or uniqueness of the work that the Beneficiary will perform on a day-to-day basis. The Petitioner's 
description lists the duties and the percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote to certain tasks. 
15 The Petitioner did not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of the 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. 
16 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 advertisements 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 enor"). 
8 
However, the record does not demonstrate that the necessary knowledge for the proffered position is 
attained through an established curriculum of particular courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. While a few related courses may be beneficial in 
performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an established 
curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. The duties as described by the 
Petitioner do not appear to be so complex or unique such that a degree in one of the fields identified 
by the Petitioner would be necessary to perform them. 
Furthermore, we note the submission of the Petitioner's organizational chart, which demonstrates the 
location of the Beneficiary's position within the Petitioner's hierarchy, as well as samples of his work 
product. While acknowledged, the documentation submitted sheds little light on the role of the 
Beneficiary, and we are unable to determine the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered 
position based on this documentation alone. Again, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained the 
manner in which the nature of the position rises to the level of complexity and uniqueness 
contemplated by this criterion. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the 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. 
Here, the Petitioner states that it has satisfied this criterion by submitting a copy of its advertisement 
for the proffered position, which "mirrors" the role offered to the Beneficiary. However, the record is 
devoid of evidence of the Petitioner's historical hiring practices regarding the position of business 
analyst. The record contains no evidence to demonstrated that the Petitioner currently or previously 
employed individuals in the proffered position. The record contains insufficient evidence that other 
9 
individuals hold or have previously held the same position, with the same or similar substantive 
responsibilities, duties, and performance requirements as the proffered position. 
The Petitioner has not persuasively established that it normally requires at least a bachelor's degree in 
a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. 17 Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
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. 
As discussed, neither the Handbook nor another authoritative source indicates that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required for positions located within this 
occupational category, and the Petitioner's descriptions of the proffered position's duties provide 
insufficient information to determine whether the nature of the position is so specialized and complex 
that it can be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent. 
Nevertheless, we have again reviewed the duties of the proffered position in full. The descriptions do not 
detail the specialized and complex nature of specific duties the Beneficiary will perform. The Petitioner 
describes a position that involves knowledge of information technology methods and techniques. The 
Petitioner, however, does not develop relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of the proffered 
position. The proposed duties do not include meaningful discussion of what the Beneficiary will actually 
be required to do in the proffered position and how those duties require the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge. 
We have again reviewed! ~s opinion in order to ascertain what elements of the 
~position are specialized and complex, but again do not find the opinion persuasive. I I 
L___J does not present a descriptive analysis that supports his ultimate conclusion that the duties 
described are specialized, requiring a bachelor's degree in information management, business analytics, 
or a related field. We again note that his information upon which his opinion is based is unclear, and 
is not supported with analysis demonstrating that the duties of the proposed position require a 
bachelor's degree in one of the specialties identified above. I I does not adequately 
explain why the position cannot be performed by a person without a specialty degree. 
In summary, we conclude that the opinion letter rendered by~------~ is not probative in 
establishing the proffered position as a specialty occupation. The conclusion reached by I I 
I I lacks the requisite specificity and detail and is not supported by independent, objective 
evidence demonstrating the manner in which he reached such conclusion. There is an inadequate 
17 We note the Petitioner's reference to~-----~' s opinion under this criterion. However,__ _____ _. 
opines regarding the general education requirements of the occupation in question, and not the particular hiring history of 
the Petitioner, which is the subject of this criterion. 
10 
factual foundation established to support the opinion and the opinion is not in accord with other 
information in the record. Therefore, the letter from~------~ does not establish that the 
proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
In the instant case, relative specialization and complexity have not been sufficiently developed by the 
Petitioner as an aspect of the proffered position. While the position may require that the Beneficiary 
possess some skills and technical knowledge in order to perform these duties, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how these tasks require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation. 
As the Petitioner has not satisfied at least one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has 
not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
III. BENEFICIARY'S 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. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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 here 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11