dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Systems Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8657887 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, a Florida homeowners insurance carrier, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "business analyst" under the H-lB nonirnrnigrant classification for specialty occupations. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C . § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
We review the questions in this matter de nova. 2 Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
(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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated in its H-lB petition that the Beneficiary will work onsite as a "business analyst" 
in the Petitioner's Florida office. On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of 
the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category of 
"Computer Systems Analysts" corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 15-
1121. 3 Though we do not describe every duty of the position, we have carefully considered each one. 
The Petitioner claims that the proffered position requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in 
information systems and operations management, computer science, or a closely related quantitative 
field. 4 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record (1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
3 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level II wage. A wage determination starts with an entry-level wage 
(Level I) and progresses to a higher wage level (up to Level IV) after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. 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 
4 Though not articulated with the initial filing, in its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
also adds "statistics" to their list of qualifying fields. This alteration from the initially articulated fields of study is not 
acknowledged or explained by the Petitioner. 
2 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 5 
A. 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 will consider the information contained in the U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) 6 regarding the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 7 The Petitioner points out that the 
Handbook reports that "[m]ost computer systems analysts have a bachelor's degree in a computer­
related field" 8 and uses this to argue that this statement alone establishes that such positions are 
specialized. In relying solely on this statement, the Petitioner ignores other statements in the 
Handbook which recognize that there are a range of disparate degrees that may be suitable for entering 
into this occupation. The imprecise and varied information in the Handbook regarding the ways to enter 
into this occupation precludes a conclusion that there is categorically a normal minimum educational 
requirement to enter the occupation. 
For example, the Handbook recognizes that "[ a ]!though many computer systems analysts have technical 
degrees, such a degree is not always a requirement" and that "[ m Jany analysts have liberal arts degrees 
and have gained programming or technical expertise elsewhere." 9 The Handbook does not clarify the 
type of technical degree or liberal arts degree (whether associate or bachelor's) and does not suggest how 
much programming or technical expertise would generally be required for an individual with a 
non-computer related degree to enter into the occupation. Because the Handbook indicates that some 
employers accept less than a bachelor's degree, and that this lesser degree may even be in a non-
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to suppmt the H-lB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position 
and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
6 We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant information. The Handbook may be 
accessed at https://www.bls.gov. 
7 The Petitioner cites to the Handbook's disclaimer to claim that the Handbook should not be used for any legal purpose. 
The pertinent disclaimer provides instructions on unintended uses of the Handbook, which are: (1) using the Handbook 
as a guide for detennining (a) wages, (b) hours of work, (c) the right of a particular union to represent workers, (d) 
appropriate bargaining units, or (e) formal job evaluation systems; and (2) using the Handbook's data to compute future 
loss of earnings in adjudication proceedings involving work injuries or accidental deaths. In light of the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' own endorsement of the Handbook as a reliable source ofinfonnation on occupational categories and their entry 
requirements, and in light of the examples of unintended uses cited in the Handbook's "Important Note," we conclude that, 
if in fact it is the Petitioner's intent to so argue, the argument against the use of the Handbook in U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudications is without merit. However, we concur with the Petitioner to the extent that it 
may be asserting that it would be erroneous to accord to the Handbook the weight or directive power of statute, regulation, 
or any legally binding document or directive. 
8 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analysts, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm#tab-4 (last visited Apr. 
27, 2020). 
9 Id. 
3 
specific discipline, such as liberal arts, the Handbook does not describe the normal mm1mum 
educational requirement for the occupation in a categorical manner. 10 Absent support from the 
Handbook, or a similar persuasive source, the Petitioner then must demonstrate that its particular position 
is among the computer systems analyst positions for which a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, is normally required. The Petitioner has not established this component of the specialty 
occupation requirements. 11 
In support of its assertions, the Petitioner cites information from the Foreign Labor Certification Data 
Center 12 which classifies the occupational category under an Education and Training Code of "Five: 
Bachelor's Degree." 13 According to information contained in the Department of Labor's Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 14 this code corresponds to completion of a degree program that 
generally "requires at least 4 years but not more than 5 years of full-time equivalent academic work" 15 
However, the DOL's Education and Training Code does not indicate that the bachelor's degree must 
be in a specific specialty. 16 Therefore, this information does not lend support to the Petitioner's 
arguments in this matter. 
Similarly, the Petitioner cited to DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Computer Systems Analysts" (SOC code 15-1121.00). The O*NET Summary Report does not 
establish that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. It 
provides general information regarding the occupation, but it does not support a conclusion that the 
proffered position requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. Instead, 
O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone Four" rating, which states "most of these occupations 
require a four-year bachelor's degree, but some do not." Moreover, the Job Zone Four designation 
does not indicate that any academic credentials for Job Zone Four occupations must be directly related 
to the duties performed. In addition, the specialized vocational preparation (SVP) rating designates 
this occupation as 7 < 8. 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. While the SVP rating indicates the total number 
10 See also Altimetrik Co1p. v. Cissna, No. 18-10116, 2018, WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (also noting 
that because the Handbook "makes it clear that a degree in a computer-related field is not required" for these positions, 
"USCIS [was] entitled to deference in its finding that systems analysts are not required to have a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty"). 
11 When reviewing the Handbook, we must note that the Petitioner designated the proffered position under this occupational 
category at a wage Level TT on the ceitified LCA. Based upon this designation (relative to others within the occupation) it 
does not appear that the Beneficiary will serve in a senior or leadership role. This designation suggests that the individual 
in the proffered position will perform the lower-level routine tasks of a position located within the "Computer Systems 
Analysts" occupation and will not perform duties that require more than a general degree, with a few certifications in SQL 
environment, for example. 
12 For more information, visit The Foreign Labor Ceitification Data Center at http://www.t1cdatacenter.com/ 
13 For fuither information, visit: 
https://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=27 l 024&area~year= l 9&source= 1 
14 Id. at Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs, available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/ download/NPWH C _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf 
15 https://flcdatacenter.com/TrainingCodes.aspx 
16 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 Cmp. 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 paiticular 
position") 
4 
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. The 
SVP rating also does not specify the particular type of degree, if any, that a position would require. 17 
Further, although the summary reports provide the educational requirements of "respondents," it does 
not account for 100% of the "respondents." Moreover, the respondents' positions within the 
occupation are not distinguished by career level (e.g., entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). 
Furthermore, the graph in the summary report does not indicate that the "education level" for the 
respondents must be in a specific specialty. For all of these reasons, O*NET does not establish the 
proffered position as a specialty occupation. 
In its RFE response and on appeal, the Petitioner cites several cases in support of its petition, including 
Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS18 for the proposition that "there is no apparent requirement that 
the specialized study needed be in a single academic discipline as opposed to a specialized course of 
study in related business specialties ... The knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important. Diplomas rarely come bearing occupation specific majors." 19 We generally agree with the 
aforementioned proposition in Residential Finance that"[ t ]he knowledge and not the title of the degree 
is what is important." 20 In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and 
biochemistry, a minimum of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as 
satisfying the "degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) 
of the Act. In such a case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be 
the same. 
Because there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized 
knowledge" and the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in disparate fields, 
such as computer science and liberal arts, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be 
"in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent)," 21 unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. 22 
The Petitioner cites to Raj and Co. v. USC!S23 to assert that the court "found [that] USCIS abused its 
discretion in relying on the OOH to determine that a baccalaureate degree or higher degree is not 
"normally the minimum requirement for entry into a particular position"" ( emphasis removed). In 
Raj, the court stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. The court confirmed that this issue is well-settled in case law 
and with the agency's reasonable interpretation of the regulatory framework. In the decision, the court 
noted that "permitting an occupation to qualify simply by requiring a generalized bachelor degree 
would run contrary to congressional intent to provide a visa program for specialized, as opposed to 
17 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
18 Residential Finance Co1p. v. USC1S, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2012). 
19 The Petitioner also cites to Tapis Int'! v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2000) 
as supporting similar principles, analysis, and conclusions as Residential Finance. 
20 Residential Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985. 
21 Section 2 l 4(i)(l )(B) of the Act ( emphasis added). 
22 The court in Residential Finance did not eliminate the statutory "bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty" 
language imposed by Congress. Rather, it found that the petitioner in that case had satisfied the requirement. 
23 Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1246 (W.D. Wash. 2015). 
5 
merely educated, workers." The court stated that the regulatory provisions do not restrict qualifying 
occupations to those for which there exists a single, specifically tailored and titled degree program; 
but rather, the statute and regulations contain an equivalency provision. 24 
In Raj, the court concluded that the employer met the first criterion. We must note, however, that the 
court stated that "[t]he first regulatory criterion requires the agency to examine the generic position 
requirements of a market research analyst in order to determine whether a specific bachelor's degree 
or its equivalent is a minimum requirement for entry into the profession." Thus, the decision misstates 
the regulatory requirement. Correctly construing the first criterion requires a petitioner to establish 
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 satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof 
remains on the petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent for entry. That is, to 
determine whether a particular job qualifies as a specialty occupation, USCIS does not simply rely on 
a position's title or designated occupational category. The specific duties of the proffered position, 
combined with the nature of the petitioning entity's business operations, are factors to be considered. 
USCIS must examine the ultimate employment of the beneficiary and determine whether the position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 25 
The Petitioner also cites to Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson 26 as relevant here and uses it to 
support a conclusion concerning the meaning of what is "normally" the minimum requirement for the 
position. 27 We question the applicability of Next Generation Tech., Inc. in the instant matter, as it 
analyzed our reading of the Handbook concerning the entry requirements for positions located within 
the different and separate occupational category of "Computer Programmers," rather than the 
"Computer Systems Analysts" category designated by the Petitioner in the LCA relating to this 
case. As noted above, the Handbook does not indicate that a bachelor's degree in a spec[fic specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally required for entry into this occupation, nor does it indicate the type of 
technical degree or level of technical training required to qualify those individuals with non-computer­
related degrees. 
As already stated, while the Handbook may establish the first regulatory criterion for certain 
professions, 28 many occupations are not described in such a categorical manner. 29 For example, "[ the 
Handbook's] description for the Computer Programmer occupation does not describe the normal 
24 We agree with the court that a specialty occupation is one that requires the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree 
in a specific specialty or its equivalent. We further note that a petitioner must also demonstrate that the position requires 
the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in accordance with section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii), and satisty one of the four criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
25 See generally Defensor, 201 F.3d 384. 
26 Next Generation Tech., Inc. v. Johnson, 328 F. Supp. 3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). 
27 We acknowledge the Petitioner's citations to various AAO decisions and older INS decisions to suppmi similar 
principles, analysis, and conclusions for which it cites Next Generation. 
28 Such professions would include surgeons or attorneys, which indisputably require at least a bachelor's degree for entry 
into the occupation. 
29 See Innova Sols., Inc. v. Baran, 2019 WL 3753334, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (declining to follow Next Generation 
Tech., Inc.). 
6 
minimum educational requirements of the occupation in a categorical fashion." 30 In such a case, "[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." 31 
Moreover, the court in Next Generation Tech., Inc. relied in part on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
(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. 32 
With regard to the case law cited by the Petitioner, we note that in contrast to the broad precedential 
authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the published 
decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same district. 33 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. 34 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation from a probative 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)(]). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong concentrates upon 
the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific 
position. 
1. First Prong 
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 
30 Id.; see also Xiaotong Liu v. Baran, 2018 WL 7348851 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018). 
31 See lnnova Sols., Inc. 2019 WL 3753334, at *8. 
32 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. 
33 SeeMatterofK-S-,20I&NDec. 715, 719-20(BTA 1993). 
34 Id. 
7 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry establish that such firms "routinely employ and 
recruit only degreed individuals." 35 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook ( or other independent, authoritative sources) 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. 
The Petitioner has not submitted any evidence that the degree requirement is common to the Petitioner's 
industry. Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that by the very nature of its complex, 
technology-driven homeowner' s insurance carrier business that the position is a specialty occupation, we 
cannot conclude that this statement establishes an industry-wide standard. 36 Nor can we agree that a 
claim of complexity in the Petitioner's overall insurance business discharges the Petitioner of its burden 
to establish that its particular position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The record does not establish that similar organizations in the Petitioner's industry have a common 
degree requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree, or its equivalent, in a specific specialty, for 
positions falling within this occupational category. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the first prong 
of the regulation 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows that 
its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with at least 
a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
When determining whether a position is a specialty occupation, we look at whether the position 
actually requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge 
attained through at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific discipline. Upon review of the totality of 
the record, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or documented why the proffered position is 
so complex or unique that a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty is required. A crucial aspect of 
this matter is whether the Petitioner has submitted sufficient and consistent evidence describing the 
proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the position. The Petitioner provided many 
vague and general job duties including: 
• Working closely with the project management team to analyze and consolidate request 
requirements to improve the decision planning process and meeting project deadlines; 
• Resolving technical problems relating to API application by identification and fixing bugs; 
• Assign the tasks to concerned team and update the user stories related to the task; and 
• Prepare and give trainings, organize workshop and transfer of knowledge. 
35 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)). 
36 We acknowledge the printouts concerning the Petitioner's business operations and the challenges faced by insurance 
carriers. This documentation, however, does not establish that the proffered position is specialized. 
8 
These descriptions, among others, demonstrate how the Petitioner has not explained in detail how the 
proffered position's duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 
specialized knowledge. Specifically, we have no information on why assigning tasks to others or 
organizing workshops requires specialized knowledge that can only be learned in a bachelor's degree 
program in the specifically identified fields. Moreover, the duty of "working closely" does not 
sufficiently convey the Beneficiary's day-to-day activities with regard to the duty. Likewise, we have 
no information on how the Beneficiary will meet project deadlines or why this signifies specialty 
occupation work. 
Other duties listed by the Petitioner involve programming languages such as SQL and Python, which 
O*NET lists are typical skills of computer systems analysts. The Petitioner has not described in detail 
why such programming languages must be learned in a bachelor's degree program or why the 
Beneficiary's use of them is complex or unique. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
shown that the duties of the position are 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 tum now to the position evaluation and opinion letter froml I a professor in the 
Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University ofl 11 !provides 
an overview of the qualifications he believes enable him to opine on this matter, a repetition of the 
Petitioner's list of position duties, and a conclusion that the position requires a minimum of a bachelor's 
degree in information systems, computer science, or a closely related field. In addition to thisj I 
provides a brief discussion of how bachelor's degree programs in computer science and information 
systems relate to the performance of the duties of the proffered position. 
Though the Director's RFE provided notice to the Petitioner that it must demonstrate how each of its 
qualifying fields of study relate to the duties of the proffered position, I Is letter lends little 
additional support to the Petitioner in this regard. The Petitioner articulated that its minimum 
qualifications are a bachelor's degree in information systems and operations management, computer 
science, or a closely related quantitative field. As previous!: stated, the Petitioner added statistics to 
the list of qualifying areas of study in its RFE response. I _ I makes no attempt to relate operations 
management, quantitative study, or statistics to the proffered position's duties. Instead, he limits his 
opinion letter to a discussion of computer science and information systems only. 
In examining the information concerning computer science bachelor's programs,! I provides an 
overview of the knowledge an individual might gain in such a program and identifies three courses which 
relate to and enable an individual to perform the duties of the proffered position. He then ties the 
knowledge gained in these three courses to two duties specifically quoted from the Petitioner's position 
description and one paraphrased duty relating to client communication and the review of user stories for 
desired functionality. One of the three dutiesl !identifies is the use of SQL, whic~ I 
states involves data mining knowledge that students learn in an information management course within a 
computer science bachelor's degree program. While it may be true that such a course would impart the 
SQL knowledge required to perform the relevant duties of the proffered position,! ldoes not 
explain why the SQL knowledge must be gained in a computer science bachelor's degree program. As 
SQL is a commonly used third-party-developed programming language, for which trainings and 
certification programs are widely available, it is not readily apparent why knowledge of it must be gained 
through a bachelor's degree in computer science. 
9 
Overall,I f s identification of three computer science courses and three proffered position duties, 
adds little to our understandinG of why the proffered position's duties require a bachelor's degree in 
computer science. I provides insufficient analysis and detail to support a conclusion that a 
bachelor's degree, while helpful, would be required. 
In his discussion of a bachelor's degree program in information systemsj ldoes not identify any 
specific courses that relate to the duties of the proffered position, but rather quotes a curriculum guideline 
that identifies broad concepts that the study of information systems includes. In addition to this,D 
I ~uotes the guideline to identify what appears to be particular areas of study that should be included 
in a bachelor's degree program, but the statement that "a strong case can be made for inclusion" suggests 
that these areas may not currently be included. As articulated, we do not know whether these particular 
areas are in fact included in bachelor's degree programs in information systems. Notably,! I 
does not relate the study of information systems to any specific duties of the proffered position. Rather, 
his discussion of bachelor's degree programs in information systems provides only a general overview of 
what the range of knowledge might include. As such, he has not sufficiently explained how the 
knowledge gained in a bachelor's degree program in information systems relates to the duties of the 
proffered position. 
Though I I states in his conclusion that he has provided "overwhelming evidence" and has 
demonstrated "significant overlap between the prescribed duties of the proffered position" with the 
general knowledge areas covered in the relevant bachelor's degree programs, we do not agree. To 
summarizej !identified three computer science courses and three proffered position duties that 
relate to each other. He did not identify any courses or duties for a bachelor's degree program in 
information systems, nor any information at all relating to operations management, statistics, or 
quantitative fields in general. I I states that the proffered position's duties are so complex and 
unique to computer science that a high degree of specialization in the field is required, but he also states 
that the proffered position duties overlap with the general knowledge areas of computer science. This 
seemingly paradoxical statement does not clarify whether general computer science knowledge is 
sufficient or whether a high degree of specialization in computer science is required. 
In viewin~ Is opinion as a whole, we conclude that he does not sufficiently explain or analyze 
why the duties, though labeled complex and unique, require specialized knowledge. Whilel I 
may draw inferences that certain courses or knowledge obtained through a bachelor's degree program 
in computer science or information systems may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the 
position, we disagree with the conclusion that a specific degree is required in order to perform them. 
While we have reviewed the opinion letter presented, it has little probative value as it does not include 
sufficient specific analysis of the duties of the particular position nor does it sufficiently relate those 
duties to the stated educational qualifications required to perform them. 37 
37 We may, in our discretion, use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'/, Inc., 
19 T&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 or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. Here, the opinion presented 
does not offer a cogent analysis of the duties and why the duties require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. We 
incorporate our discussion ofl l's opinion into our discussion of the other 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) criteria. 
10 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently develop relative complexity or uniqueness as an aspect 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. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied the 
second alternative prong of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. To satisfy this 
criterion, the record must establish that the specific performance requirements of the position 
generated the recruiting and hiring history. 
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. 38 
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. 39 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 does not offer evidence of its past recruiting and hiring history for the proffered 
position, nor has it submitted evidence of any current employees serving in the proffered 
position. 40 Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(3). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature of 
the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually 
associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Although some tasks may connote a requirement of familiarity with general computer science principles, 
including programming languages, the record is insufficient to establish that the duties require anything 
more than a few basic courses and a broad educational background. While a few such courses may be 
beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof: 
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. 
38 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
39 Id. 
40 While the Director's decision incorrectly stated that the Beneficiary will work at a third-party site and referenced that 
the Petitioner submitted a redacted document in support of its eligibility under criterion three, this constitutes harmless 
error. The Director did not deny the petition based upon a failure to establish the requisite employer-employee relationship, 
nor did the Petitioner submit evidence for our consideration under criterion three. Therefore, the Director's reference to 
deficiencies related to evidence that does not exist in the record, though incorrect, does not prejudice the Petitioner. 
11 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is well-qualified for the position and references her 
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. 41 
For the same reasons we discussed under the second prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one with duties sufiiciently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). We incorporate our earlier 
discussion and analysis on this matter. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
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. 
41 We are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies for 
classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether a beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz As.socs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The 
facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to 
employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
12