dismissed H-1B Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 5265719 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129 , Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 11, 2020 
The Petitioner , a mobile device testing finn , seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "data analyst" under 
the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S . 
employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite 
for entry into the position . 
The Vermont Service Center Director initially approved the Form I-129 , Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker. Subsequently , the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR). Ultimately , the 
Director revoked the approval , concluding that: (1) the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered 
position is a specialty occupation; and, (2) the record does not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified 
for the proffered position . 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred. Upon de nova review , we 
will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A. Revocation 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may revoke the approval of an H-lB petition pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(l l)(iii) , which states the following: 
(A) Grounds fo r revocation. The director shall send to the petitioner a notice of 
intent to revoke the petition in relevant part if he or she finds that: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidenc e standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
(]) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity 
specified in the petition; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition ... was not true and 
correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact; or 
(3) The petitioner violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; or 
( 4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101 (a)( 15)(H) of the Act 
or paragraph (h) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section or 
involved gross error. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed 
statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for the 
petitioner's rebuttal. The petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 
days of receipt of the notice. The director shall consider all relevant evidence 
presented in deciding whether to revoke the petition in whole or in part .... 
B. Specialty Occupation 
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: 
(]) 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 
2 
( 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 
We conclude that the Director properly revoked the approval under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the offered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. In her decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's failure to 
meet any of the four regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). Upon consideration 
of the entire record, including the evidence submitted and arguments made on appeal, we adopt and 
affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. 2 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted documentation previously submitted in response to the Director's 
NOIR. Further, we do not agree with the Petitioner's appellate statement that its specified degree 
fields are sufficiently related and demonstrate a qualifying body of highly specialized knowledge 
needed to perform in the occupation. The Petitioner stated that the proffered position requires at least 
a bachelor's degree in mathematics, economics, information technology, statistics, or a related field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the required degree fields, and the Handbook listed for this 
occupation, are related because of their "heavy utilization of mathematics, quantitative reasoning, 
statistics and technology," and that the degree in "business is closely related to a degree in economics." 
We do not agree with the Petitioner's viewpoint. The simple fact that multiple disciplines may 
incorporate a particular concept should not be interpreted as inherently, or automatically qualifying a 
broad set of degree programs under the H-lB classification. Numerous disciplines incorporate some 
form of quantitative analysis into the curriculum, such as anthropology, sociology, social psychology, 
political science, economics, as well as the physical sciences. Further, a bachelor's degree program 
in finance or economics also includes quantitative elements that would not seemingly apply to the 
proffered position's duties under the Operations Research Analysts category. Were we to rely on the 
Petitioner's broad approach-as long as quantitative analysis serves as an underpinning within a 
particular discipline, that this would sufficiently tie a degree program to a set of quantitative-related 
duties-any degree program that includes quantitative reasoning within the curriculum could serve to 
qualify. This would allow the Petitioner to rely on obviously unrelated and disparate degree fields, 
2 See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994) ); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F .3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative 
judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing 
officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized 
attention to the case). 
3 
which appears antithetical to the statutory definition of at least a bachelor's degree "in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent)." 3 
A petitioner must demonstrate that the proffered position requires a precise and specific course of 
study that relates directly and closely to the position in question. 4 The Petitioner's appeal indicates 
that the knowledge required to perform the proffered position does not require a precise and specific 
course of study, but rather requires concepts that are taught in various quantitative disciplines. 
Here, the Petitioner has not established that a bachelor's degree in mathematics, economics, 
information technology, statistics, or a related field are all closely related fields, such that the "body 
of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. The Petitioner also has not 
established that all quantitative disciplines would be directly related to the duties and responsibilities 
of the position in this petition. Without such a demonstration, we cannot conclude that the particular 
position proffered in this matter requires 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 in the United States. 
The Petitioner cites to Raj and Co. v. USCIS, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2015) to support its 
claim that the first regulatory criterion does not preclude the finding of a specialty occupation position 
when multiple disciplines may be permitted. We are not persuaded. Rather, the court in Raj 
specifically stated that a specialty occupation requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Raj, 85 F. Supp.3d at 1246. The court confirmed that this 
issue is well-settled in case law and within the agency's reasonable interpretation of the legal 
framework. Id. The court also observed 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 merely educated, workers." Id. 
We agree with the general proposition that "[ t ]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is 
important." Residential Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d at 997 ( citing Tapis, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 175-76). 
Moreover, we generally agree that, if the requirements to perform the duties and job responsibilities 
of a proffered position are a combination of a general bachelor's degree and specialized experience 
such that the standards at both section 214(i)(l )(A) and (B) of the Act have been satisfied, then the 
proffered position may qualify as a specialty occupation. However, these general propositions are not 
applicable here. 
Instead, they are applicable in circumstances where (1) a specific degree is not available in a particular 
field, and (2) the beneficiary has obtained the equivalence to that specific degree through a 
combination of general education and specialized experience. The Petitioner does not demonstrate 
that the same circumstances existed here, e.g., that a degree in finance does not exist or is not typically 
available, or that a liberal arts degree is acceptable only under certain circumstances. 
In any event, the Petitioner has famished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are sufficiently analogous to those in Raj, which concerned marketing-related occupations. And in 
3 Section 214(i)(l) of the Act (emphasis added). 
4 Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). 
4 
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. See K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 719-20. Although the reasoning underlying a district 
judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not 
have to be followed as a matter oflaw. Id. 
In addition, we note that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform 
the duties of the proffered position. However, we need not examine the issue any further because a 
beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the job is found to be a 
specialty occupation. See Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 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]."). 
Finally, the Petitioner's appeal refers to an updated opinion letter that was submitted in response to 
the NOIR, but it presents the same information it offered before the Director without explaining why 
we should find those claims any more persuasive than the Director did. As we do not observe an error 
in the Director's analysis of this letter, the Petitioner failed to achieve its burden of proof relating to 
this evidence supporting its eligibility claims. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The revocation of the previously approved petition is affirmed for the above stated reasons. The 
burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner in revocation 
proceedings. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5