dismissed H-1B Case: Consumer Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8095036 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 27, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director erred and that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. Upon de nova review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § l 184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor 's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition , but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 A petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the 
evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner must show that what 
it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and 
credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
(]) 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"). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner is a mass market consumer finance provider, who provides financing for smartphones, 
tablets, and laptops, and is offering the Beneficiary a position as a "risk analyst." 2 The Petitioner 
initially described the duties of the proffered position, which we have numbered, as follows 
(verbatim): 
1. Developing or assisting in developing of robust and compliant models (scorecards) 
predicting risk default, chum, fraud, collections effectiveness as well as 
profitability and other key indicators utilizing: 
a. Traditional credit bureau data 
b. Application data 
c. Customer behavior data 
d. Big data elements 
e. And other permissible data sources 
2. Ad hoc analysis, data mining from warehouse with SQL, finding trends and outliers 
in data and visualizing it; 
3. Development of predictive models/applying advanced statistical methods to fulfill 
business needs utilizing R and Python; 
4. Creating sophisticated folly automated Tableau dashboards/reports that monitor 
underwriting models for handset financing offers as well as credit card models; 
2 The Petitioner most recently employed the Beneficiary through STEM-related post-completion optional practical 
training, and has provided copies of wage statements for her employment with the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. §§ 
274.a.12( c)(3)(i)(C). 214.2(t)(l O)(ii)(C). 
2 
5. Performing fair lending analyses and other advanced statistical back-testing to 
ensure US regulatory compliance; 
6. Proposing changes in scorecard development and offer settings to increase 
profitability; 
7. Applying machine learning algorithms to solve business problems; 
8. Extracting raw data from credit bureau flat files and apply feature engineering to 
them; 
9. Testing new approaches by combining external data sources with internal data; 
10. Maintaining up-to-date models documentation; 
11. Preparing visualizations of scorecard front- and back-end reports; 
12. Analyzing Business processes and propose optimizing solution; 
13. Proposing changes and process modification implementation; 
14. Communicating with other departments and participating in knowledge sharing; 
15. Preparing IT systems description documentation, modifying checks and process 
scripts, and preparing IT testing scenarios and manuals for employee use. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided two expanded 
descriptions of the duties of the position that identified the same four core job functions, but provided 
differing time percentages devoted to each duty, among other things. 3 For the sake of brevity, we will 
summarize the position descriptions included in the Petitioner's RFE response, as follows: 4 
1. Ad-hoc analysis, data mining from data warehouse with SQL, finding trends and 
outliers in data and visualizing it; (25%) 
2. Development of predictive models/applying advanced statistical methods to fulfill 
business needs utilizing Rand Python; (30%) 
3. Creating sophisticated highly functional, folly automated Tableau dashboards [ and] 
reports that monitor underwriting models for handset financing offers as well as 
credit card models; (30%) 
4. Performing fair lending analyses and other advanced statistical back-testing to 
insure US regulatory compliance. (15%) 
3 Specifically, the position description provided in the Petitioner's July 2019 letter accounts for 90% of the Beneficiary's 
work time, reflecting the following time percentage distribution for each job function: 1. 25%, 2. 30%, 3. 25%, and 4. 10%. 
The Petitioner has not explained the reasons for these time percentage variances, or what tasks the Beneficiary will perform 
during the time that is not accounted for in its alternate position description. 
4 We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted additional information for the job duties, which, for the sake of brevity, 
have not been included herein. However, this material has been closely reviewed and considered, as with all evidence in 
the record. For instance, the Petitioner also included a listing of the Beneficiary's previous coursework for the purpose of 
correlating the need for the Beneficiary's education with the associated job duties of the position. However, 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 the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the 
nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&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]."). 
3 
The Petitioner initially states that the pos1t10n requires "at least a Bachelor's degree ( or foreign 
equivalent) in Mathematics, Business Analytics, Data Analytics or related field," but did not specify 
any particular level of work experience for entry into the position. 
II. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we determine that the proffered position does not qualify as a specialty 
occupation. Specifically, the record provides insufficient information regarding the proffered position, 
which in turn precludes us from understanding the position's substantive nature and determining 
whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 5 
A crucial aspect of this matter is whether the Petitioner has sufficiently described the duties of the 
proffered position such that we may discern the nature of the position and 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. When determining whether a position 
is a specialty occupation, we look at the nature of the business offering the employment and the 
description of the specific duties of the position as it relates to the performance of those duties within 
the context of that particular employer's business operations. 
To begin with, there are inconsistencies in the record which raise questions as to the actual, substantive 
nature of the proffered position. On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the 
petition, the Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Operations 
Research Analysts" corresponding to the SOC code 15-2031 with a Level I wage. 6 In response to the 
Director's RFE, it submitted its February 2016 job offer letter which offered the Beneficiary a position 
as a "risk analyst." In contrast, it presented printouts of the Petitioner's electronic "ADP Human 
Resources profile" for the Beneficiary, which shows that she was promoted in March 2019 to a "senior 
risk analyst position." The Petitioner contemporaneously submitted an organization chart which 
reflects that the Beneficiary is employed as a risk analyst, who along with another risk analyst and a 
senior risk analyst report to the Petitioner's director of analysis. The evidence provided reflects that 
the Petitioner employs risk analysts at various levels of seniority within its organizational hierarchy, 
e.g. risk analyst, or senior risk analyst, and suggests that the Beneficiary was employed as a risk analyst 
from February 2016 until her promotion to the senior risk analyst position in March 2019, prior to the 
filing of the petition. Nonetheless, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary will be employed as 
a risk analyst, not a senior risk analyst, and provides no explanation or evidence initially, in response 
to the RFE, or on appeal to address the changes in the substantive nature of the proffered position and 
the underlying positon requirements that occurred as a result of the Beneficiary's promotion. The 
Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
5 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B 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 In general, a petitioner must distinguish its proffered position rrom others within the same occupation through the proper 
wage level designation to indicate factors such as the relative complexity of the job duties, the level of judgment, the 
amount and level of supervision, and the level of understanding required to perform the job duties. DOL, Emp 't & Training 
Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009) (DOL 
guidance), available at http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised_ 11 _ 2009 .pdf. 
4 
Furthermore, though the Petitioner maintains that the duties of the position do not require prior work 
experience as a prerequisite, it provides job announcements for positions with other financial services 
companies that it asserts are "parallel positions" to the instant position, such as a "risk analyst" 
position, which is identified as a "mid-senior level position," and requires "5 years relevant business 
experience" in addition to a "Bachelor's degree in a quantitative field .... ," and a "senior credit 
analyst" position which requires a master's degree in a "quantitative field .... ," and "five to seven 
years of experience in financial modeling/use of statistical/machine learning models." The record 
lacks consistent and probative evidence sufficient to determine whether these positions are in fact 
"parallel" to the instant position, but we conclude that the Petitioner's selection of job announcements 
for positions that appear to be significantly more advanced than the Level I entry-level risk analyst 
position designated in the LCA and in the petition also raises questions regarding the substantive 
nature of the proffered position. 7 Id. 
In summary, due to the inconsistent and insufficient evidence in the record, we are unable to determine 
the extent of the proffered position's uniqueness, specialization, complexity, and the level of 
knowledge it requires, which limits our ability to determine whether the position may qualify as a 
specialty occupation. After filing the petition, the Petitioner cannot offer a new position to the 
Beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of authority within the organizational 
hierarchy, the associated job responsibilities, or the requirements of the position. The Petitioner must 
establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification 
for the benefit sought. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1978). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient 
petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izwnmi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998). For these reasons, the petition may not be approved. 
The Petitioner also relies on the opinion letter written by I I Associate Professor at the 
I I College of TechnologQ University of I l to support its assertions 
regarding the minimum requirements of the proffered position. The professor concludes that the duties 
of the position "could not possibly be performed without at least a bachelor's degree in Mathematics, 
Business Analytics, Data Analytics, or a related specialized field." However, his level of familiarity 
with the actual job duties as they would be performed in the context of the Petitioner's business has 
not been substantiated. For example, the professor states that his "opinion is based on my review of 
extensive documentation," then references the previously discussed position descriptions in support 
of the petition, and the Beneficiary's academic credentials. He does not identify the other material 
that was included in his review of "extensive documentation," or how he otherwise obtained 
knowledge about the specific roles and responsibilities of the proffered position within the context of 
the Petitioner's business operations. Notably, he opines that the proposed position involves a "highly 
technical, specialized role," but does not discuss the Beneficiary's promotion to a senior risk analyst 
position, or the varying hierarchal levels of the risk analyst positions within the Petitioner's 
organization, and to which level the proposed duties correspond. 
7 These inconsistencies also raise significant questions as to whether the LCA corresponds to and supports the H-1 B 
petition, as required. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(6). See also Matter of Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 T&N Dec. 542, 545-546 
(AAO 2015). 
5 
The record also does not indicate whether the professor was aware, as indicated by the Level I wage 
on the LCA that the Petitioner respectively certified to the DOL when the LCA was certified, and then 
attested to USCIS when the petition was filed, that the proffered position is to be an entry-level risk 
analyst position. 8 The professor refers to the position as one requiring "deep knowledge of the internal 
data warehouse structure, SQL queries, and statistical methods." He also notes that the "candidate 
would employ[] expertise in US regulations concerning fair lending practices," in the exercise of her 
job duties. 9 Therefore, the professor's statements raise questions regarding his claimed familiarity 
with the Petitioner's company, as well as the proffered position. 
In his analysis of the proffered position, the professor also opines that the instant position "require[ s] 
an underlying background in data science; extract, transform, load (ETL) processes; computer 
programming; database systems; and algorithm design and development. As such, a qualified 
candidate would necessitate the prior completion of at least a bachelor's degree in a highly quantitative 
field such as Mathematics, Business Analytics, or Data Analytics." 10 But the professor did not discuss 
any detailed course of study or the "educational foundation" provided by the aforementioned degrees 
in relation to the specific duties of the position. While the professor may draw inferences that certain 
mathematics, statistics, or computer science related courses may be beneficial in performing certain 
duties of the position, without more, he does not substantiate his inferences that such a degree is 
required in order to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
Further, the professor states that "[a]mong educators and industry experts, it is widely recognized that 
individuals holding a position such as the Risk Analyst position herein necessarily must have at least 
a bachelor's-level degree in [the aforementioned degrees]," but he does not specify the source of his 
information about typical hiring practices for parallel positions within the Petitioner's industry. The 
professor's opinion letter does not substantiate his conclusions, such that we can conclude that the 
Petitioner has met its burden of proof. 
8 Again, the Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). 
Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, supra. A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry level wage 
and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's 
job opportunity. Id. See also 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
9 Notably, the Petitioner indicated that it provided "mandatory training" to the Beneficiary "to carry out her duties of 
creating predictive models and conducting analytics for large amounts of data in accordance with the Petitioner's 
preferences and standards." The Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's ·'transcript list" for these trainings, which included 
courses with titles such as the "Financial Privacy Act," "Fair Credit Lending," "Reg B Essentials," and "Fair lending 
Essentials." However, the Petitioner did not articulate that specialized "expertise" in U.S. regulations was a prerequisite 
for entry into the position. We observe that special skills, such as "expertise in U.S. regulations," or other requirements 
which are not listed in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) as usually being typical for the occupational 
category will generally require an increase in the wage level on the LCA. Prevailing Wage Determination Policy 
Guidance, supra. 
10 We observe that the Petitioner has recently posted job advertisements on an Internet job site for "Risk Underwriting 
Analyst" and "Risk Analyst" positions, which indicate that the tasks of the positions entail "dealing with our underwriting 
process and doing post-approval monitoring; you'll also be creating and automating rep01is on the above." The 
advertisements each also note: "You know you are the perfect fit if you Took ( and finished) the following courses: 
Statistics, Economics, Physics, Applied Math, Math & Computer Science." Notably, the job advertisements did not specify 
a position requirement for a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. The Professor did not indicate if he had examined 
the Petitioner's own job advertisements for the position. Sec https://www.glassdoor.com.hk/Job/pasig-risk-analyst-jobs­
SRCH _IL.0,5 _IC475645 l _ KO6, 18.htm?rdserp=true&jl=3199938895&guid=00000l 707d0ce0438e93ff67113ed8d5&po 
s=l 0l&src=GD _JOB_AD&srs=EI_JOBS&s=2 l&ao=437149. (Last visited Feb. 26, 2020.) 
6 
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 or may give less 
weight to that evidence. Id. For the sake of brevity, we will not address other deficiencies within the 
professor's analyses of the proffered position. 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we determine it is insufficient to establish the substantive 
nature of the work to be performed by the Beneficiary, which therefore precludes a conclusion that the 
proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it is the substantive 
nature of that work that determines (1) the normal minimum educational requirement for entry into 
the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry positions which are parallel to the 
proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a common degree requirement, under the first 
alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or uniqueness of the proffered position, which 
is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; (4) the factual justification for a petitioner 
normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is an issue under criterion 3; and ( 5) the degree 
of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, which is the focus of criterion 4. 11 
The Petitioner has not presented consistent evidence or argument sufficient to establish that, more 
likely than not, the proffered position is a specialty occupation as defined by the regulations and the 
statute. 12 
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, 
and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11 As the lack of probative and consistent evidence in the record precludes a conclusion that the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation and is dispositive of the appeal, we will not fmiher discuss the Petitioner's assertions on appeal 
regarding the criteria under 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
12 It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality. Id. 
7