dismissed H-1B Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 9531809 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 8, 2020 
The Petitioner, a provider of health insurance products, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "senior data reporting analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(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 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 . 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
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: 
(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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "senior data reporting analyst" and maintains that 
a minimum of a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related field is required for entry into the 
position. 1 The Petitioner provided multiple lists of duties and while for the sake of brevity we will not 
list each duty here, we have carefully reviewed and considered each one. 2 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 does not include 
sufficient consistent, probative evidence establishing that the job duties require an educational 
background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 3 
1 The Petitioner most recently employed the Beneficiary through STEM-related post-completion optional practical 
training. 8 C.F.R. § 274.a.12(c)(3)(i)(B); 8 C.F.R 214.2(f)(10)(ii)(C). 
2 For instance, the Petitioner discussed 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 detennine 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 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. 
2 
The Director concluded the evidence was insufficient to establish that the position qualified as a 
specialty occupation under at least one of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the position meets criterion(]) and criterion ( 4) at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
It does not challenge the Director's determination of ineligibility, under the criteria in the first and 
second alternative prongs of criterion (2), or under criterion (3) of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
Therefore, we will focus our discussion on whether the position qualifies as a specialty occupation 
under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) in criterion(]) and (4). 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(]), 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) regarding the duties and educational 
requirements of the wide variety of occupations it addresses. 4 The Petitioner designated the proffered 
position on the labor condition application (LCA) 5 as a Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 
code 15-1199 "Computer Occupations, All Other" occupation, and asserts that the duties of the 
proffered position are consistent with the duties of the "Business Intelligence Analysts" sub-category 
corresponding to SOC code 15-ll99.08. 
The Handbook is a career resource offering information on hundreds of occupations. However, there are 
occupational categories which the Handbook does not cover in detail, and instead provides only summary 
data. 6 The subchapter of the Handbook titled "Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail" states, in 
relevant part, that the "[ t ]ypical entry-level education" for a variety of occupations within the category of 
"[ c ]omputer and mathematical occupations" is a "Bachelor's degree," without indicating that the 
bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. 7 Thus, the Handbook is not probative in establishing 
that these positions comprise an occupational group for which the normal minimum requirement for entry 
is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
4 We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source ofrelevant information. That is, the occupational 
category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a 
proffered position, and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. All of our references to the Handbook may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/. 
5 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 
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. § 655.73l(a). 
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Data for Occupations Not Covered in 
Detail, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm (last visited July 7, 2020). Here, 
the Handbook does not provide specific information for various occupations which might be classified within the occupational 
category. 
7 The Handbook also indicates that this occupation does not require work experience in a related occupation or typical 
on-the-job training. Id. 
3 
The Petitioner also references the DOL's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) summary report 
for "Business Intelligence Analysts." 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 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. 8 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. 
Also in support of its arguments, the Petitioner cites to RELX Inc. v. Baran. 9 The Petitioner 
acknowledges on appeal 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 United States district courts 
in matters arising even within the same district. 10 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. 11 
The Petitioner cites to RELX to support the proposition that since O*NET "states most of the 
occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, the position of (Computer Occupations, All Other) 
was indeed found to be a specialty occupation." However as discussed, O*NET does not establish the 
proffered position as a specialty occupation. Moreover, as the foregoing discussion demonstrates, while 
we agree that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty, we do 
not agree with the analytical framework set forth by the RELX court. 
In RELX, the court did not address the statutory and regulatory provisions as they pertain to the 
requirement that the bachelor's degree, or its equivalent, be in a spec[fic specialty. To avoid restricting 
the qualifying occupations to those for which a single, specific specialty exists, the court did not 
consider the requirement for specialization and overlooked that neither the Handbook nor O*NET 
stated that the referenced bachelor's degree must be in a specific specialty. In overlooking this relevant 
8 For additional information, see the O*NET Online Help webpage available at http://www.onetonline.org/ 
help/online/svp. 
9 RELX, Inc. v. Baran, 397 F.Supp.3d 41 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2019). 
10 SeeMatterofK-S-,20I&NDec. 715, 719-20(BTA 1993). 
11 Id. 
4 
detail, the court disposed of the precedential authority created by Royal Siam Corp. v. Chert off 2 and 
continued to do so when it examined the evidence presented for the other criteria. 
We also disagree with the court's statement that "[ the Petitioner] did not just make a general reference 
to O*NET. Rather, [the Petitioner] stated that the Data Analyst position is aligned with the DOL's 
"Business Intelligence Analyst" position for which there is a detailed description that is directly 
relevant to the inquiry of whether the position is specialized." 13 While we agree that O*NET is 
relevant, the court's treatment of O*NET as dispositive simply because the proffered position aligned 
with the occupational category disregards the spec[fic specialty analysis that underpins Royal Siam 
Corp. The RELX court further stated that "[s]ince the [Handbook] indeed does provide specific 
detailed information regarding educational requirements for the computer operations category, and the 
detailed information states most of the occupations require a four-year bachelor's degree, the agency's 
rationale was both factually inaccurate and not supported by the record." 14 Here, again the court did 
not undertake the proper inquiry regarding the specific educational requirements of the position and 
instead regards a general requirement for a bachelor's degree as sufficient to discharge the petitioner's 
burden. 
Because the Handbook and O*NET do not describe the normal minimum educational requirements 
with sufficient specificity to establish that the positions falling within the occupational category are 
specialized, we disagree with the court's reliance on these sources as establishing the requisite 
eligibility. Instead, we believe that absent support from the Handbook and O*NET, the court should 
have analyzed whether the petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated that its particular position was one 
for which a bachelor's degree would normally be required and whether the stated field(s) of study 
directly related to the performance of the duties. 15 In other words, though we agree with the RELX 
court that the bachelor's degree does not have to be a degree in a single specific specialty, this 
agreement is predicated upon the fields of study being closely related to the duties of the position and 
the record reflecting evidence sufficient to establish such relation. 
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. Since 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 philosophy 
and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the specific specialty 
( or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly related to the duties and 
12 Royal Siam Co1p. 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"). 
13 RELX Inc., 397 F.Supp.3d at 54. 
14 Id. 
15 Though the RELX court briefly discusses the duties of the position, it did not engage in analysis of whether the duties 
actually required the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment 
of a baccalaureate or higher degree in the specific specialty as the minimum for entry into the occupation. Rather, after 
disposing of the authority set forth in Royal Siam Corp., the court accepted the petitioner's stated standards concerning its 
position. Sec generally Dcfcnsor v. Meissner, 20 I F.3d 384, 387. 
5 
responsibilities of the particular position. 16 For the foregoing reasons, we cannot agree with the 
reasoning contained in the RELX decision and therefore conclude that the Petitioner's reliance upon 
the case does not support its eligibility. 17 
To satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence 
to support a conclusion that its particular position would normally have a minimum, specialty degree 
requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. The Petitioner has not done so here. As the foregoing 
demonstrates, 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)(l). 
B. 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 a preliminary matter, we note that the Petitioner conflates the Beneficiary's suitability or 
qualifications for the position with the minimum entry requirements for the position. The Petitioner 
states on appeal "the job description contains a specific list of the Computer Science-related tasks, 
methodologies, and applications that are required to perform each of the listed duties as well as the 
related bachelor's level ( or higher) coursework through which the [B]eneficiary acquired such 
knowledge." The Petitioner's statements evidence that the Petitioner confuses the ability of a specialty 
degreed individual to perform the duties of the proffered position with a degree requirement in order 
to perform the duties. 
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. 18 Put simply, the duties dictate the required program of study rather than the program of 
study speaking to the nature of the duties. Stating that a person with a bachelor's degree in computer 
science could perform the duties of the proffered position is not the same as stating that such a degree 
is required to perform those duties. As such, the Petitioner misconstrues the statutory and regulatory 
requirements of a specialty occupation. 
16 Section 214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). 
17 We further note that the Director's decision in RELXwas not appealed to us. Based on the district court's findings and 
description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through the available administrative process, we may very 
well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision to address many of the concerns articulated by the 
district court if they could not have been remedied by us in our de novo review of the matter. 
18 We are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation, and second, whether the beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant 
visa petition was filed. CJ Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 l&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]."). 
6 
Upon review of the totality of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
or documented why the proffered position is so specialized or complex that a bachelor's degree in a 
specific specialty is required. 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. 
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. 
On a fundamental level, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient material about the 
projects that the Beneficiary will be engaged in. The Petitioner is a provider of health insurance 
products, who recently "incorporated a new business services company to house its health information 
technology services as well at its various research and development teams." The Petitioner states that 
the Beneficiary will be an employee of this company working on in-house projects, and describes his 
role within the organization as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] will be a member of the Business Management Analytics (EMA) 
team within the Enterprise Solutions at [the Petitioner]. The EMA team supports 
business operations reporting and analytics for internal customers across all of [the 
Petitioner]. The primary focus of this group includes utilization of resources, 
profitability, demand, and capacity planning. The EMA team's mission is to deliver 
world-class decision support tools for business and financial management across [the 
Petitioner]. 
The Petitioner further indicates that "the [EMA] team develops complex reports and visualizations for 
our customers using industry leading business intelligence and analytics tools like Tableau and 
Alteryx, and [the Beneficiary] is instrumental in our team's success in utilizing these tools." Here, the 
Petitioner indicates that the group focuses on "utilization of resources, profitability, demand, and 
capacity planning" for use by internal customers across the Petitioner's organization. While this 
material provides a general overview of the EMA team's mission, and the general business topics that 
are the focus of the team's reporting and analytical functions, it is not apparent from the record how 
the EMA's work products are utilized by the Petitioner's "internal customers" in furtherance of its 
business objectives. This is important because the Petitioner emphasizes the complexity of the reports 
and "visualizations" that the EMA team creates for the organization, but as we will explain the material 
provided does not illustrate the specialization and complexity of the Beneficiary's work assignment 
which involves the creation of these products with the EMA team. 19 
19 Notably, the Director requested evidence, to include an explanation of the specific duties of the proffered position, as 
they relate to the Petitioner's products and services. The Petitioner has not sufficiently addressed this aspect. "Failure to 
submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the [petition]." 8 C .F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(14). 
7 
We conclude that the relative specialization and complexity of the Beneficiary's role within the context 
of the EMA team's work activities has not been sufficiently delineated in the record. To farther 
illustrate, the Petitioner emphasized throughout the proceedings that the Beneficiary will liaise or 
interact with various internal stakeholder groups, including: 
• Work with database ETL team to understand and build the Oracle SQL source data 
flow in Alteryx required for the dashboard. 
• Conduct review sessions internally with the team and then with the stakeholders to 
make sure the drafts are analyzed and refined to a final product version. 
• Work with business owners to understand the initial [Tableau dashboard 
requirements] request. 
• Develop spreadsheet reports for multiple teams which benefit from the data 
provided by the BAM team. 
• Interact with the intended audience on a regular basis to review drafts of Tableau 
dashboards on a test server. 
Though these duties provide a general overview of work that a senior data reporting analyst might 
perform, the actual tasks involved in these duties remains unclear. For instance, "interact[ing] with" 
a team is too nebulous a description to enable us to understand what it will involve and as stated, we 
cannot ascertain why it requires specialized knowledge. The Petitioner described the job duties of the 
position, but the evidence does not show the operational structure within this initiative in a manner 
that would establish the claimed specialized nature of the Beneficiary's role. The organization chart 
for the BAM team indicates that the Beneficiary reports to its manager of business management 
analytics, and reflects that the team is staffed with his manager, a senior IT systems analyst, two senior 
data reporting analysts (including the Beneficiary in the proffered position), two data reporting 
analysts, and a business analyst. The organization chart suggests that beyond the team manager, three 
of the six positions within the team bear "senior" job titles, but the Petitioner has not distinguished 
how the tasks performed by the Beneficiary in his "senior" data reporting analyst position within the 
BAM team differs from the data reporting analyst positions that are not "senior." 20 Here, the Petitioner 
has not substantiated the asserted specialized and complex nature of the Beneficiary's role within the 
context of the BAM team's reporting and analytical endeavors. 
The Petitioner provided exemplars of the Beneficiary's work product in response to the Director's 
RFE, and notes on appeal "as you can see [the proffered position with the Petitioner] is responsible 
for delivering decision support tools for business and financial management computer applications 
across [the Petitioner's] various business units." The Petitioner does not discuss the purpose of the 
exemplar reports and analytical dashboards, nor does it specifically explain how the development of 
these work products involve specialized or complex tasks such that a degree in a specific specialty is 
required in their creation. For instance, the "Workforce Plan for [the Petitioner]" work product 
includes the Alteryx workflow chart, and several pages of highly redacted data. The report indicates 
that it was created by the Beneficiary and that he will be responsible for performing data extracts from 
tables maintained by the BAM team, as well as running queries, and performing on-going 
20 Though requested by Director requested in her RFE, the Petitioner did not provide evidence about its employment 
practices, such as copies of job postings, official position descriptions, and other material to demonstrate the educational 
and experience requirements for the positions listed within its organization chart. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
8 
modifications and maintenance to the dashboard. The Petitioner provided similar information for 
other reporting dashboards bearing titles, such as "Daily Demand for [the Petitioner]," and "Project 
Profitability for [the Petitioner]." Each work product notes that the information technology tools used 
for their creation includes "Tableau 10.4, Alteryx, Oracle, and MS Excel." The duties required to 
create these work products feature significant use of third-party technology, for which the Petitioner 
has not explained why skills using such technologies could not be gained through certifications in 
these technologies or a computer bootcamp. Much of the Beneficiary's work is performed using 
Tableau, Alteryx, Oracle, and MS Excel, but the Petitioner makes little effort to explain how use of 
these technologies is specialized or complex or requires a bachelor's degree in computer science or a 
related field. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the duties of the position 
are so specialized or complex that they can be performed only by an individual with at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
We now tum to the position evaluation provided by I I Associate Professor of 
Computer Information Systems at I !university. The professor quotes verbatim from the 
Petitioner's letter of support submitted with the H-1 B petition, to include the general narrative about 
the Petitioner and the complete job description of the Senior Data Reporting Analyst position, 
rephrases the duties listed in O*NET for this occupational category, and concludes "the duties 
described above are not those of a lower level employee," indicating that the duties are "those of a 
professional employee with a strong background in information systems concepts and principles and 
a great level ofresponsibility within the company." 
Notably, the professor also opines "[w]hen evaluating the minimum degree requirement for a certain 
employment position, the specific responsibilities must be examined, along with the position title, to 
ascertain the nature of the academic requirements." As discussed, the record does not substantiate the 
asserted specialized or complex responsibilities of the proffered position in the creation of the work 
products of the BAM team. While the professor may have conducted farther research and analysis 
beyond studying the Petitioner's letter of support, he does not otherwise indicate or describe the source 
of any other material that lead him to conclude that the proffered position holds "a great level of 
responsibility" within the Petitioner's organization. It appears that the professor did not base his opinion 
on any objective evidence, obtained through performing research specifically about the Petitioning entity 
and the scope of the proffered position within that organizational construct, but instead largely analyzes 
the proffered position descriptions provided in support of the petition. The professor farther concludes: 
In more detail, duties such as providing regular updates to the Tableau dashboards and 
Alteryx data flow to maintain and update the required changes to the organizational 
and financial adjustments within the company while fixing incoming requests on issues 
relating to existing dashboards and Tableau data sources could only be competently 
performed by a candidate with at least a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science or a 
related area. 
Like the Petitioner, the professor does not explain why skills using such technologies as Tableau or 
Alteryx could not be gained through certifications in these technologies or a computer bootcamp. 
While the professor generally ties attaining a degree to concepts one might employ while engaged in 
the proffered position, his account lacks a sufficient analysis of the specific curriculum necessary to 
9 
perform in the position that is allegedly so specialized or complex. 21 The professor may draw 
inferences that computer science related courses may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the 
position, but we disagree with his inference that such a degree is required in order to perform the duties 
of the proffered position. 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. 
Lastly, it is important to note that it appears as though the professor used a template with conclusory 
findings and generic analysis to support the Petitioner's particular position as a specialty occupation. 
The lack of cogent analysis strongly suggests that the professor was asked to confirm a preconceived 
notion as to the required degrees, not objectively assess the proffered position and opine on the 
minimum bachelor's degree required, if any.22 While we will review the opinion presented, it has 
little probative value as it does not include sufficient substantive analysis of the duties of the particular 
position that is the subject of this petition.23 
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, the Petitioner has not established that the nature of the 
specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. The evidence of record does not satisfy the fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the record does not satisfy the statutory definition of specialty occupation and at least one of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
21 Similar to the Petitioner, the professor's statements indicate that he confuses the ability of a specialty degreed individual 
to perform the duties of the proffered position with a degree requirement in order to perform the duties. 
22 Service records show that this same template with the same language, organization, and similar conclusory statements 
regarding different occupations and also without sufficient supporting analysis has been submitted on behalf of other 
petitioners. These similarities lend further support to the suggestion that the author of the opinion was asked to confirm 
preconceived notions. 
23 We hereby incorporate our discussion of the professor's letter into our discussion of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
10